Judge says $510M in fees for lawyers in treaty case was unreasonable

OTTAWA — An Ontario court judge has ruled a $510-million legal fee for lawyers who worked on a First Nations treaty rights case was unreasonable — and has ordered the fee scaled back to $23 million.

“A lawyer’s professional retainer is not a lottery ticket offering a bonus prize of generational wealth to the lawyers if the clients hit the jackpot and win a mega-award,” Justice Fred Myers wrote in his decision released Tuesday.

The Robinson Huron Treaty settlement, reached in 2023, sought to remedy unpaid treaty annuities for 21 First Nations.

It resulted in a $10-billion settlement. Five per cent of that sum went to the lawyers from Nahwegahbow Corbiere Genoodmagejig/Barristers & Solicitors who argued the case on behalf of the First Nations.

The First Nations said the fact that the $4-per-person annuity had not increased since 1874 breached the treaty, because resource extraction projects operating on their land had been generating profits that far exceeded what their members received.

Fifteen of those First Nations received less in the settlement than the lawyers working on their behalf did, the judge noted.

Garden River First Nation and Atikameksheng Anishnawbek launched a court application against the lawyers’ fees last year, saying they were unreasonable and that the lawyers were pressuring them not to pursue independent reviews of the payment.

The other 19 First Nations involved in the case did not explicitly support the application to the court.

Myers wrote in his decision that the legal team did great work in arguing the case and “represented the clients zealously, resolutely, passionately, and with extraordinary success.”

But their remuneration was out of line, he added.

“Lawyers in Ontario are entitled to fair and reasonable fees for their services. They are entitled to be well-compensated as agreed between them and their clients,” Myers wrote.

“But lawyers are not their clients. The recovery from a lawsuit, whether by settlement or judgment, belongs to the clients.”

Myers also wrote that lawyers with the First Nations-owned firm Nahwegahbow Corbiere Genoodmagejig advised the First Nations against seeking a legal review of the $510 million in fees.

Myers wrote that in the early years of the case, lawyer David Nahwegahbow told the First Nations they would have to find new lawyers to argue on their behalf if a negotiated fee was not reached.

He also said as discussions about the fee were heating up after the settlement in 2023, lawyer Dianne Corbiere warned the First Nations during a meeting that payments to their communities would be delayed if they sought an outside opinion on the $510 million.

“Ms. Corbiere advised the meeting further that although different lawyers may have different views on their fees, the legal team were their ‘family members’ and were looking to resolve their fees in accordance with Anishinaabe law,” Myers wrote.

“Ms. Corbiere did not advise the meeting that she was acting in a conflict of interest in purporting to advise the fund, the trustees, and the chiefs about her and her team’s own fees.”

In a statement, a law firm representing lawyers with Nahwegahbow Corbiere Genoodmagejig called the decision a “disappointing outcome which echoes centuries of paternalistic attitudes to First Nations,” and said they are considering appealing it in court.

“Any suggestion that First Nations negotiators were naive or misled is offensive. The chiefs, elders and other trustees involved in this agreement were experienced negotiators who drove a hard bargain and were well aware of what they were doing over the entire course of this ligation,” Brian Gover of Stockwoods Barristers said.

“Unfortunately, Justice Myers’ decision continues a centuries-old narrative of First Nations being incapable of making informed decisions for themselves.”

Gover continued that the litigation was “enormously complicated and required arduous work by the entire legal team,” pointing to the $10-billion settlement as proof of that work, and warned the decision could damage relationships between lawyers and their clients.

“Appropriate legal fees were essential to attract lawyers who were prepared to risk almost 20 years of complex litigation against long odds,” he wrote, adding the lawyers worked 65,000 billable hours on the case, and they offered to return half of their fee to the communities for things like language preservation.

“This week’s fee decision will imperil the autonomy of First Nations decision-makers at the very time they are working out an approach to future benefits that are still to come as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision,” he said.

In a document sent to community members and shared with The Canadian Press, Atikameksheng Anishnawbek celebrated the decision.

The First Nation said the excess sum from the fees is to be distributed to each of the 21 First Nations that signed the treaty.

Some First Nations promised community members a 100 per cent payout of the funds the community won, while others opted for a partial distribution setting aside some money for future community development, programming and litigation.

When the two First Nations first brought forward the application to review the lawyers’ fees, Robinson Huron Treaty signatory descendants were divided on whether that was the right choice.

Scott McLeod, the former chief of Nipissing First Nation and current regional chief for Anishinabek Nation, said he expects the decision released Tuesday will ignite further debate.

McLeod, who was involved in the case as it was being settled, told The Canadian Press the debacle could have been avoided if chiefs had taken care to make sure the legal fees they agreed to were fair and reasonable.

“You also have to understand the immense, immense amount of pressure that leadership was under from community to have this settled and to have money distributed to membership,” he said.

“That kind of pressure leads to mistakes, and perhaps (there was) not enough time given to clear (our) thoughts and decision-making.”

He ultimately lays the blame at the feet of the provincial and federal governments.

“If you starve a room full of people and then throw some food in the room after a long period of time, it’s very difficult for those people to make patient, rational decisions,” he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 29, 2025.

Alessia Passafiume, The Canadian Press