[11] Eric Hinderaker: This expert witness is a professor of history at the University of Utah.
He was accepted as a historian with expertise in the relations between the British and First Nations
in the 18th century, including the British practice with respect to issues associated with the
territorial expansion of the American colonies, the events leading up to the Seven Years’ War in
North America and the war itself, the Detroit treaty, Pontiac’s War, the Royal Proclamation and
the Niagara Congress. He has excellent credentials but in his testimony it became apparent that
SON was not the focus of his expertise, and his knowledge of Indigenous peoples from the
Peninsula area is sparse. He was also argumentative in part of his evidence and some of his
evidence, for example, with respect to Pontiac’s War, had a weak foundation. I have taken these
weaknesses into account, but I accepted much of his evidence as useful and reliable.
[12] Francine McCarthy: This expert witness is a professor of earth sciences at Brock
University. She was accepted as a geologist with expertise in the geologic history of the Great
Lakes basin from the last Ice Age to the present, including questions about what can be
reconstructed from the geologic and fossil record concerning historical lake levels, lake depth,
water flow, land forms, and changes to them; climate; and plants and animals found in the Great
Lakes region. Most of her evidence is undisputed. I found her to be a knowledgeable and
responsive witness.
[13] Michel Morin: This expert witness is a professor of law from the Université de Montréal.
He was accepted as a legal historian with expertise in the legal relationships between France and
First Nations from the 16th to the 18th century, including the Law of Nations and its application
to and impact on French practice with respect to First Nations and territory in North America,
official grants of authority by the French Crown to colonial administrators from 1541 to 1760,
French views on the significance of discovery and symbolic acts of possession, diplomatic
negotiations between France and England from 1687 to 1755 regarding respective territorial
holdings in North America, and official acts with respect to the boundaries of First Nation’s
territories. Prof. Morin was called in reply to Canada’s witness Dr. Beaulieu. I found him to be a
straightforward, responsive expert witness although he does not have the same depth of expertise
as Dr. Beaulieu in the relevant historical events, and some of his evidence requires qualifications
that affect its weight, as discussed above.
[14] Randolph Valentine: This expert witness is a professor of linguistics at the University of
Wisconsin. He was accepted as a linguist with expertise in the Anishinaabemowin language and
its various dialects spoken in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Minnesota and Montana, including questions about the Anishinaabemowin dialects
spoken by SON, their relationships to the dialects of surrounding communities, and what
conclusions can be drawn from these dialectical variants. He was a knowledgeable and responsive
witness, and he was frank about the limitations of his expertise.
[15] Canada did not object to the admissibility of Dr. Valentine’s evidence, but submits that his
evidence should be given less weight because it is novel science (or a novel application of existing
science). However, Canada’s submissions were founded on the limitations of Dr. Valentine’s
expertise, including evidence about time periods and other matters. Dr. Valentine did sometimes
go beyond his expertise in his testimony, as discussed in context above. Canada did not advance