Appeal court rules with Land Back Lane activist, saying he was denied a chance to be heard

Ontario's highest court has ruled a judge denied Land Back Lane spokesperson Skyler Williams fairness and an opportunity to be heard, and has set aside injunctions around a housing development in Caledonia. Ont.

The Ontario Court of Appeal decision released Tuesday allows Williams's appeal, and says Ontario Superior Court Justice R.J. Harper conflated contempt and abuse of process when he dismissed Williams's arguments for staying on the disputed territory.

Appeal Court Justice Lorne Sossin, writing for the panel of three judges who heard the case, said more than $100,000 in costs imposed against Williams must be set aside.

The ruling also states that the developers involved in the project must pay Williams $20,000, a figure the parties involved in the case agreed would be paid to whichever of them was successful.

Barry Yellin, a partner with Hamilton-based Ross & McBride LLP, argued in October that the legal process that led to permanent injunctions around the development was "procedurally unfair" and a new hearing should be ordered.

Yellin said Harper's decision last year to dismiss arguments Williams had for staying on the disputed territory meant questions around the history of the land and Indigenous rights were silenced.

Doing so "left no room for reconciliation," according to the lawyer.

The land in question is a housing project in Caledonia, Ont. Foxgate Developments — a joint venture between Losani Homes and Ballantry Homes — planned to build more than 200 homes on the site it called McKenzie Meadows.

Williams and other Six Nations land defenders began occupying the site in July 2020. The demonstrators say it is unceded Haudenosaunee territory and have dubbed it 1492 Land Back Lane.

Paul DeMelo, a lawyer with Kagan Shastri LLP, represented the developers at the court of appeal and said Harper's decision should stand.

He argued Williams continuing to visit the site in defiance of the judge's order lessened the status of the court in the eyes of the public.

"Simply because one disagrees with a court order doesn't give one the right to disobey that court order," said DeMelo.

He said at the time that if someone wants to argue before the court, then they should follow its process.

"If one does not accept the decision of the court … your remedy is to appeal," DeMelo said.