Law360 Canada ( June 3, 2022, 5:47 AM EDT) -- Appeal by George Gordon First Nation, its Chief, Council and members (“GGFN”) from the dismissal of their claim on grounds that the chambers judge erred in his interpretation of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements (“NRTA”). GGFN commenced an action against Saskatchewan and Canada seeking declarations, damages and other relief. The action alleged the respondents each breached their duty to consult with GGFN before Saskatchewan disposed of mineral rights within 100 km of GGFN’s existing reserve. GGFN, like many other First Nations, received some land under Treaty No. 4, but did not obtain the amount of land to which it was entitled. Treaty land entitlement (“TLE”) negotiations resulted in an agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) that allowed GGFN to purchase acres of land as reserve lands. The Settlement Agreement did not permit the purchase of mineral rights to form part of GGFN’s reserve without also acquiring the surface rights. If GGFN purchased surface rights to land for which the mineral rights were undisposed, Saskatchewan was required to transfer those mineral rights to Canada for GGFN, without compensation, subject to a “public purposes” exception. Saskatchewan disposed of other mineral rights contiguous to or nearby GGFN’s existing reserve lands, or within a 100 km radius, to private third parties, while it was negotiating the Settlement Agreement and after the Settlement Agreement was signed and in effect. The Chambers judge observed Saskatchewan did not transfer its mineral titles to private parties. Instead, it granted licences or leases for mineral extraction, known as mineral dispositions, which were subject to conditions, including time limits. The Chambers judge determined that Saskatchewan’s practices, both before and after the Settlement Agreement was reached, provided sufficient notice to GGFN about potential land and mineral dispositions available for acquisition....