Restoule v Canada
Canadian legal judgment
Restoule v Canada is a legal case in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that considers whether the Augmentation clause in the 1850 Robinson Treaties entitles the Anishinaabe to an increase in annuity payments.
Justice Patricia Hennessy presided over the case, which featured the Anishinaabe First Nation as plaintiffs and the Attorneys General of Ontario and of Canada as defendants. The case concerns the two Robinson treaties, the Robinson Huron Treaty and the Robinson Superior treaty, focusing specifically on whether the Augmentation Clause within the treaties proscribes a cap on the annuities payable to the First Nation.
The Anishinaabe argued there should be an increase to the annuity, while the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario argued that there should be a cap on the annuity.
On December 21, 2018, Justice Patricia Hennessy declared that the Crown had a duty to increase the annuities in the Robinson treaties. She determined that the Robinson treaties provide for an increase in the collective annuities and only caps the payment to individuals at $4.
The case has been viewed as a step towards reconciliation.
Background
In 1850, 24 first nations entered into two treaties with Mr. William Robinson. Robinson was appointed by the Crown to negotiate a surrender of First Nations' territorial land on the north shore of Lake Superior and the north shore of Lake Huron.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Restoule v Canada” is canadian legal judgment. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Restoule, Canada and Canadian, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “canadian legal judgment” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 25, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q104867063. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1850 and 2018.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Restoule v Canada”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Restoule v Canada primary sources, Restoule v Canada archive and Restoule research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Restoule v Canada”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Restoule v Canada” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.