|
| Negotiations | Protecting Land | Reports | Other Groups | Background | Contact |
As of May 4, 2000, the Daishowa v. Friends of the Lubicon court battle has ended signaling closure in a twelve year long dispute between Daishowa and the Lubicon Nation. Daishowa v. Friends of the Lubicon, et al 1. Daishowa Inc. agrees to abandon their appeal of the decision of Justice MacPherson without costs.
On April 7, 2000, Daishowa-Marubeni International (DMI) Executive Vice President Tom Hamaoka wrote to Lubicon Chief Bernard Ominayak. In that letter, Hamaoka states that :
"I.. wish to re-confirm DMI's original commitment made to you in our letter of May 20, 1998. For further clarity, however, we also wish to confirm to you that DMI will not be harvesting trees, nor will DMI buy any fibre from the Lubicon area of concern until your land issue is resolved between the Lubicon and both levels of government, including harvesting rights, fish, and wildlife concerns. Furthermore, we wish to assure you that DMI will not purchase any fibre from the Lubicon area of concern. Naturally, this commitment to not purchase includes any fibre that any new owners of the Brewster mill might propose to take from the Lubicon traditional area."
Daishowa's definition of the Lubicon "area of concern" was confirmed by a letter and map from DMI on June 9, 1998 as being approximately the 10,000 square kilometre unceded Lubicon traditional territory.
On Thursday May 4, 2000, an Ontario Court of Appeal panel of three judges entered into the court record a last-minute out-of-court settlement agreement between Daishowa and Friends of the Lubicon, whereby both parties abandoned their appeals and ended the five year legal dispute between Daishowa and the Friends of the Lubicon. That settlement agreement is attached below.
The out-of-court settlement preserves the 1998 Ontario Court judgment by MacPherson J. affirming the right of Canadian citizens to organize a peaceful consumer boycott as had been conducted by Friends of the Lubicon.
As long as Daishowa honours its commitment to the Lubicon Nation, the Friends of the Lubicon have agreed to refrain from boycotting, picketing, demonstrating, publicly protesting or carrying out similar activities against DMI or any of the Daishowa group of companies undertaken to secure the commitments Daishowa has now made to the Lubicons in their April 7th letter. This re-affirms the commitment FOL already made in a letter to Daishowa on June 12, 1998
Now that Daishowa has made the commitment being asked of it and has abandoned its legal action against the Friends of the Lubicon, the Friends of the Lubicon respectfully request that as long as Daishowa honours its commitment to the Lubicon Nation, any group supporting the Lubicon or FOL also refrain from boycotting, picketing, publicly protesting or carrying out similar activities against DMI or any of the Daishowa group of companies undertaken to secure the commitments they have now made to the Lubicons in their April 7th letter or to convince Daishowa to end the legal action against FOL. Both goals have been reached and it's time we moved on to fight for Lubicon land rights on another front.
The settlement agreement states that if DMI or any of its related companies fails to honour its commitments to the Lubicon Nation, FOL is freed from all of FOL's commitments made in the settlement agreement.
------------------------------------------------------------
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
2. The Friends of the Lubicon agree to abandon their cross-appeal of the decision of Justice MacPherson without costs.
3. The Friends of the Lubicon ("FOL") undertakes to refrain from and publicly re-affirm an end to all boycotting, picketing, demonstrating, publicly protesting or similar activities against Daishowa Marubeni International Limited or any of the Daishowa group of companies or their customers which may have been undertaken in relation to the commitments referred to in this agreement and in relation to the activities (actual or prospective) and commitments referred to in the correspondence dated April 7, 2000 from Tom Hamaoka to Lubicon Chief Bernard Ominayak (attached). The FOL will relay written notice of that commitment to its supporters and any other Lubicon solidarity groups. The FOL will request in good faith that any group which has been formed in support of the Lubicon or the FOL terminate the activities referred to above.
4. The FOL will post a statement on their web site consistent with the undertaking set out in paragraph 3.
5. In the event that any other group of Lubicon supporters or solidarity groups commences any boycott, picketing, demonstrations, public protests or similar activities against any of the Daishowa group of companies or Daishowa Marubeni International Limited or their customers in relation to matters described in paragraph 3, the FOL agrees that it will for a period of ten years send a copy of this agreement and the public statement referred to in paragraph 3 to said group and request in good faith that they terminate these activities.
6. If Daishowa Marubeni International Ltd. or any of its related companies fails to honour its commitments to the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation as specifically referred to and set out in correspondence dated April 7, 2000 from Tom Hamaoka to Lubicon Chief Bernard Ominayak (attached), the Friends of the Lubicon shall be released from their undertakings as set out in this agreement and Daishowa Marubeni International Ltd. or any of the Daishowa group of companies shall cease to distribute, publish, or broadcast the written commitments referred to in paragraph 3 above.
7. If the FOL fail to honour the undertakings set out in this agreement, the parties hereto understand that Daishowa Inc. may decide to apply for an injunction to enforce the undertakings set out in paragraphs 3 and 5 herein and seeking the injunctive relief requested in Daishowa Inc.'s appeal in Action No. C29713; if that occurs, the FOL undertakes not to object to the application for an injunction on the ground that the said appeal has been withdrawn.
DATED at Toronto, this 3rd day of May, 2000
_________________________
Friends of the Lubicon
DATED at , this day of May, 2000
_________________________
Daishowa Inc.
For Info, relating to the former conflict between Daishowa and the Lubicons/Friends of the Lubicon, please see
If at any time you have any questions or want more background material on the issues involved, please e-mail Friends of the Lubicon at fol@tao.ca
Jan 1, 2000
In the Daishowa group of companies, Daishowa Paper Manufacturing Co. Ltd. is the parent company.
Daishowa Paper wholly owns Daishowa Inc. and Daishowa Canada Co. Ltd.
Daishowa Paper half owns Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd.
Daishowa Inc., is suing the Friends of the Lubicon and had owned a plant where paper bags were manufactured.
Daishowa Canada had logging interests in virtually the entire unceded Lubicon territory up until the last quarter of 1992.
Daishowa-Marubeni has logging interests in Lubicon territory acquired from Daishowa Canada towards the end of 1992.
With forestry-related operations in Japan, Australia, U.S.A. and Canada, Daishowa Paper's sales worldwide have been over $3 billion a year .
On February 8 1988, Daishowa announced plans to construct a pulp mill near Peace River, Alberta just west of the unceded Lubicon traditional territory. At the time the mill was heralded as being the largest hardwood bleached kraft pulp mill in Canada.
Much to their horror, Lubicon people read in the papers the next day that in order to feed the mill Alberta was unilaterally granting Daishowa "timber rights" to an area which included the 10,000 square kilometre Lubicon traditional territory. The Lubicons also learned that the mill was designed to produce one thousand metric tons of dehydrated pulp per day which would require the cutting of some 11,000 trees a day. That's about 70 football fields daily!
After years of deteriorating social and economic conditions in the Lubicon community as a result of the destruction of their lands and traditional way of life by massive oil and gas exploitation, Lubicon Chief Bernard Ominayak charged that permitting clear-cut logging was an attempt to finish off his people.
In the weeks following the February 8th announcement, Ominayak was repeatedly reported expressing the Lubicon's resolve to defend their unceded territory against attempts to clear-cut log. The Lubicons, at the time, were still dealing with a tuberculosis epidemic affecting about one-third of the community and reportedly the worst in Canada since the depression. The Lubicons let Daishowa know that they do not want Daishowa to log on unceded Lubicon traditional territory until Lubicon land rights are settled and Lubicon environmental and wildlife concerns are addressed.
In September 1990 Daishowa's new Peace River pulp mill was completed and logging season was fast approaching. Logging in Lubicon territory is best done when the ground freezes, otherwise the ground may be too soft to support heavy logging machinery.
Daishowa indicated that they would be logging on Lubicon land. The Lubicons countered that all unauthorized equipment on Lubicon land was subject to removal without further notice.
Regardless, Daishowa-owned Brewster Construction and another company proceeded to log on Lubicon land later that fall. Subsequently, logging equipment belonging to a subcontractor of the other company was damaged. No-one was hurt. Thirteen Lubicons were charged but the charges were effectively dropped over five years later.
In the summer of 1991, with Daishowa threatening to resume clear-cutting Lubicon lands in the coming winter, the Lubicons issued a call for help to stop Daishowa.
In Europe, support groups started a boycott of Daishowa paper products. In Canada, a number of different groups including Friends of the Lubicon (Toronto) followed suit.
Friends of the Lubicon identified paper bags as a consumer product produced by Daishowa and sold in Canada. (This is no longer true as Daishowa sold its paper bag operations.) The Friends approached companies asking them to consider the plight of the Lubicon when deciding from whom they would purchase their paper bags. By the end of 1994, 47 companies representing over 4300 retail outlets across Canada had stopped using or committed not to use Daishowa paper bags. The success of the boycott is that since the boycott began Daishowa has not logged on Lubicon land.
To end the boycott, all that was ever asked of Daishowa was for a clear, unequivocal and public commitment to not log or buy wood cut on unceded Lubicon lands until the land rights were settled and until a timber harvesting agreement respecting Lubicon wildlife and environmental concerns was negotiated.
On January 12, 1995, Daishowa served Friends of the Lubicon with legal papers indicating that Daishowa Inc. was seeking an injunction against certain boycott activities and claiming from individuals in the group an unspecified amount in damages.
Daishowa was successful in convincing the courts to "temporarily" outlaw the consumer boycott for about three years pending a full trial hearing and judgment on the matter.
On April 14, 1998, several months after the end of a twenty-eight day trial which spanned four months, Ontario Court Justice James MacPherson dismissed Daishowa's application for a permanent injunction against the consumer boycott. MacPherson J.'s trial judgment ruled the boycott not only legal but a "model of how such activities should be conducted in a democratic society."
On April 21, 1998, just one week after the boycott was ruled legal and at Daishowa's request, Daishowa met Friends of the Lubicon to discuss how to avoid further boycott action. A month later, Daishowa produced an ambiguously worded written commitment. On June 9th Daishowa clarified that they were committing to not log or buy wood cut on Lubicon land until the land rights were settled and until an agreement respecting Lubicon wildlife and environmental concerns was negotiated.
On June 11th the Lubicon Nation and Friends of the Lubicon accepted Daishowa's commitment and called off the boycott.
Although the boycott was called off, Daishowa continued to pursue its appeal, filed on May 12, 1998. Daishowa is asking the court to overturn the Ontario Court ruling which permits people in Ontario to organize a consumer boycott of Daishowa products. Hearing dates are set for May 4 and 5, 2000.
Daishowa's pursuit of the appeal coupled with actions by Daishowa in 1999 bring into question the sincerity of their written commitment.
When Daishowa made their commitment to not log on Lubicon territory, they also relinquished "timber rights" in the southeast portion of Lubicon land. In February of 1999 the Alberta provincial government announced that this portion of Lubicon land would be reallocated for logging. Shortly after a call for expressions of interest in logging this area and others went out, a group of Indian Bands from the region including the government-created Woodland Cree Band, the Loon River Band, and the Whitefish Band - along with Daishowa Marubeni International - worked together on a proposal to log in Daishowa's former area in the southeast portion of Lubicon land. The joint proposal indicated that the Bands would do the logging and sell the wood to Daishowa.
On May 28, 1999, Daishowa-Marubeni International (DMI) announced that it had signed a major five-year timber logging contract with Kee Tas Kee Now Logging Ltd. - a joint venture involving the Woodland, Loon and Whitefish Bands. Their contract stipulates that they log a minimum of 100,000 cubic metres of wood per year. Daishowa will then process the wood at their Peace River pulp mill. They were set to log "northeast of the Peace River," according to a DMI press release, and north east of the Lubicon "area of concern" according to DMI Communications Manager Ewa Ardiel at the time of the announcement.
However that is only part of the story. According to an informed source, DMI still retains "timber rights" in western half of the Lubicon traditional territory and has contracted out those "timber rights" to Kee Tas Kee Now. Whether the new logging consortium will act on those "rights" to log within the Lubicon traditional territory is not yet clear. What happens to Daishowa's commitment not to buy wood cut in Lubicon territory should their new partners move in to clear-cut unceded Lubicon territory is also unclear.
As of May 4, 2000, the Daishowa v. Friends of the Lubicon court battle has ended signaling closure in a twelve year long dispute between Daishowa and the Lubicon Nation.
On April 7, 2000, Daishowa-Marubeni International (DMI) Executive Vice President Tom Hamaoka wrote to Lubicon Chief Bernard Ominayak. In that letter, Hamaoka states that :
"I.. wish to re-confirm DMI's original commitment made to you in our letter of May 20, 1998. For further clarity, however, we also wish to confirm to you that DMI will not be harvesting trees, nor will DMI buy any fibre from the Lubicon area of concern until your land issue is resolved between the Lubicon and both levels of government, including harvesting rights, fish, and wildlife concerns. Furthermore, we wish to assure you that DMI will not purchase any fibre from the Lubicon area of concern. Naturally, this commitment to not purchase includes any fibre that any new owners of the Brewster mill might propose to take from the Lubicon traditional area."
Daishowa's definition of the Lubicon "area of concern" was confirmed by a letter and map from DMI on June 9, 1998 as being approximately the 10,000 square kilometre unceded Lubicon traditional territory.
On Thursday May 4, 2000, an Ontario Court of Appeal panel of three judges entered into the court record a last-minute out-of-court settlement agreement between Daishowa and Friends of the Lubicon, whereby both parties abandoned their appeals and ended the five year legal dispute between Daishowa and the Friends of the Lubicon. That settlement agreement is at the top of this web page.
The out-of-court settlement preserves the 1998 Ontario Court judgment by MacPherson J. affirming the right of Canadian citizens to organize a peaceful consumer boycott as had been conducted by Friends of the Lubicon.
As long as Daishowa honours its commitment to the Lubicon Nation, the Friends of the Lubicon have agreed to refrain from boycotting, picketing, demonstrating, publicly protesting or carrying out similar activities against DMI or any of the Daishowa group of companies undertaken to secure the commitments Daishowa has now made to the Lubicons in their April 7th letter. This re-affirms the commitment FOL already made in a letter to Daishowa on June 12, 1998
Now that Daishowa has made the commitment being asked of it and has abandoned its legal action against the Friends of the Lubicon, the Friends of the Lubicon respectfully request that as long as Daishowa honours its commitment to the Lubicon Nation, any group supporting the Lubicon or FOL also refrain from boycotting, picketing, publicly protesting or carrying out similar activities against DMI or any of the Daishowa group of companies undertaken to secure the commitments they have now made to the Lubicons in their April 7th letter or to convince Daishowa to end the legal action against FOL. Both goals have been reached and it's time we moved on to fight for Lubicon land rights on another front.
The settlement agreement states that if DMI or any of its related companies fails to honour its commitments to the Lubicon Nation, FOL is freed from all of FOL's commitments made in the settlement agreement.
A more detailed account of the now -resolved Lubicon - Daishowa dispute is available from mailings put out by Lubicon Nation. Copies of some of these mailings can be found among other Lubicon Nation mailings located at www.nisto.com/cree/lubicon
For those who are interested in how Daishowa has used the courts to shut down a successful boycott campaign -- only to see that decision reversed -- and for a taste of what's in store for Friends of the Lubicon at the appeal proccedings May 4 & 5, 2000 -- this chronology should fill in some important details.
* January 12, 1995 : Friends of the Lubicon are served with papers indicating that Daishowa Inc. is seeking an injunction against certain boycott activities and claiming from individuals in the group an unspecified amount in damages. The papers call for the first hearing to start February 6, 1995.
* February 6, 1995 : Friends of the Lubicon appear in court represented by Clayton Ruby and Dan Brodsky, and argue for an adjournment until April to give them time to prepare their defence. The court agrees, only on the provision that in the meantime (until the April hearing), FOL will not contact any Daishowa customers, will not picket any Daishowa customers, and will not encourage the public not to shop at stores who are customers of Daishowa. These provisions effectively give Daishowa the injunction before the case is even heard.
* April 26-28, 1995 : Interim Injunction Hearing. Daishowa's case is a big one, and will take more than a month to be heard fully in court. Until the court can schedule such a trial, Daishowa asks for an Interim Injunction which would stop FOL from pursuing the boycott in the meantime, arguing that they have suffered over $5 million in damages so far and shouldn't be subjected to more potential damage while waiting for trial. Madame Justice Frances Kiteley dismisses most of their claims in a decision delivered May 19, 1995. FOL are allowed to continue their activities until a full trial can decide on the future of the boycott.
* June 30, 1995 : Justice Steele, author of the Temagami decision (recently described in a major Canadian newspaper as "one of the most aggressively anti-Indian judgments of the century" - grants Daishowa leave to appeal the May 19 decision.
* September 6, 1995 : Finding that Daishowa has secured an appeal date for September 21, despite their lateness in filing papers, FOL's lawyers ask for an adjournment to a later date in order to have reasonable time to prepare. Justice White postpones the appeal date to October 24, but imposes conditions: between September 21 and October 24 FOL is not allowed to picket any Daishowa customers or inform them of any plans to picket, nor encourage the public not to shop at those stores - this essentially grants Daishowa their appeal before their appeal is heard.
* October 24-25, 1995 : Daishowa's Appeal of the May 19 Interim Injunction decision is heard. The court reserves judgment but in the meantime it keeps in effect the prohibition on boycott activities as per Justice White's Sept. 6th court order.
* January 23, 1996 : Judgement. In a 2-1 split decision, the Divisional Court gives its reasons for granting Daishowa an injunction against Friends of the Lubicon which will last until trial. They rule that key elements for a boycott to become illegal are if there is an intent to cause economic harm to the company and if actual economic harm occurs. Such a decision threatens any effective boycott in Canada.
* April 26, 1996 : Friends of the Lubicon are denied leave to appeal the decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal; no reasons are given.
* September 10, 1996 : Finding that Daishowa has been slow to provide necessary disclosure required for preparing a defence, FOL asks for an adjournment of the scheduled trial date. The court agrees to reschedule the trial until the following September, however Daishowa asks for further conditions to be imposed.
* October 21, 1996 : As a condition of adjourning the trial, Daishowa asks the Court to stop FOL, FOL's lawyers and a university professor - who is not even named in the case - from calling the lawsuit a SLAPP suit. The Court does not grant Daishowa's request.
* November 1996 : Friends of the Lubicon file for leave to appeal the Divisional Court's interim injunction decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking the question "Are consumer boycotts unlawful in Canada?"
* June 13, 1997 : Daishowa sends FOL's lawyers a letter threatening contempt of court proceedings against FOL member Kevin Thomas, former FOL lawyer Clayton Ruby and the national CBC television station for broadcasting a program in which Thomas refers to Daishowa as "bullies" and a CBC reporter uses a word FOL is prohibited from using. No charges are ever brought forward.
* June 19, 1997: Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear the Friends' appeal. No reasons are given.
* September 2, 1997 : Full Trial Begins. This is where Daishowa's claims are investigated in much greater detail, and the court decides whether or not to permanently halt FOL's activities and grant an award of damages to Daishowa.
* September 15, 1997 : At a press conference, David Suzuki, Alan Borovoy and Patrick Watson express their shared concern that Daishowa's lawsuit against the Friends of the Lubicon could make consumer boycotts illegal in Canada and is a serious threat to everyone's right to free speech. Alan Borovoy is with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. David Suzuki is a broadcaster and scientist. Patrick Watson is an author, broadcaster, and producer.
* Dec 12, 1997 : Trial Ends. Twenty eight witnesses testify in court during a grueling twenty eight days of trial hearings spanning four months.
*April 14, 1998 : Trial Judgment. Ontario Court Justice James MacPherson releases his judgment on the Daishowa vs. FoL case. MacPherson J. rules the boycott not only legal but a "model of how such activities should be conducted in a democratic society."
Reasoning that corporate rights to commercial expression have already found protection in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Court said, "If the great principle of freedom of expression protects a corporation …then is there any reason why the same principle should not protect a small group of consumers…from saying to fellow consumers: "here is why you should not buy Daishowa’s products?"
The court however bans people in Ontario from using two assertions which had been publicly used to describe Daishowa's actions with regards to the Lubicons.
* April 14, 1998 : At a press conference, Friends of the Lubicon announce Daishowa has another ten days to commit to not log on Lubicon lands until the land rights are settled and a timber harvesting respecting Lubicon wildlife and environmental concerns is negotiated. Without such a commitment, an international boycott would begin again.
* April 21, 1998 : At Daishowa's request, Daishowa representatives meet with Friends of the Lubicon representatives to discuss avoiding further boycott actions. Friends of the Lubicon reiterate that upon receipt of the oft-requested commitment, the boycott will stop immediately.
* April 24, 1998 : At a press conference, Friends of the Lubicon announce the Daishowa Boycott is back on and that groups around the world are also commencing boycott action.
* May 12, 1998 : Daishowa files an appeal of MacPherson J’s judgement. At the same time, Daishowa’s lawyer Peter Jervis writes to the Friends’ lawyer Karen Wristen that "Our clients trust that Friends of the Lubicon will not perceive the delivery of the Notice of Appeal as any change in the position of Daishowa Inc. that a negotiated resolution between Daishowa Inc. and Friends of the Lubicon is in the best interests of all parties and will continue to be pursued."
* May 20, 1998 : Daishowa-Marubeni International President Tokiro Kawamura writes to Lubicon Lake Indian Nation Chief Bernard Ominayak saying, "I am writing to formally advise you of DMI’s public commitment not to harvest or purchase timber in your area of concern, until your land issue is resolved with both levels of government, including harvesting rights, fish, and wildlife concerns."
* May 25, 1998 : Lubicon Lake Indian Nation Chief Ominayak responds promptly, saying in part that given "the various definitions of the phrase ‘area of concern’ used by Daishowa in the past, the Lubicon people require that you publicly define this phrase Lubicon ‘area of concern’. "
* June 9, 1998 : Mr. Kawamura writes to Chief Ominayak clarifying Daishowa's commitment. He writes "the area of concern to which Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. made a commitment on May 20, 1998, is the approximately 4000 square mile area outlined in the attached map." The map he attaches represented the entire Lubicon traditional territory.
* June 11, 1998 : Chief Ominayak writes back to Mr. Kawamura accepting "DMI's public commitment that Daishowa, its related companies and their contractors, will not harvest or purchase timber from the approximately 4,000 square mile (10,000 square kilometre) area identified in the attached map included with your June 9 letter until Lubicon lands and claims, including resource management and harvesting rights, as well as fish, wildlife and environmental concerns, have been settled." He continues "I have forwarded a copy of your letter to Lubicon supporters advising them of our acknowledgment and acceptance and requesting that they bring the boycott of Daishowa paper products to an end."
* June 11, 1998 : Friends of the Lubicon writes Mr. Kawamura, calling off FoL's involvement in the boycott, saying "Chief Ominayak has informed us that Daishowa’s clarification of their May 20, 1998 promise adequately addresses the concerns of the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation. As a result, we will be winding down our boycott of Daishowa products effective immediately. We expect, accordingly, that Daishowa’s appeal of MacPherson J.’s judgement will be abandoned."
* June 16, 1998 : FoL's legal counsel Karen Wristen writes to counsel for Daishowa Peter Jervis asking if Daishowa views their appeal as moot. She says, in part, that "my clients have accordingly instructed me to advise that their involvement in boycott activities concerning Daishowa has ceased and will not recommence so long as Daishowa continues to abide by its written commitment. In these circumstances, it would appear that appeal proceedings are moot. I would appreciate having your views on that point."
* July 20, 1998 : Having no response on the issue of the appeal, Karen Wristen again writes to Peter Jervis, saying "I would appreciate your advice as to the appeal, in response to my letter of June 16: do you have instructions to abandon it?" Ms. Wristen receives no formal response to her question until almost a year later.
* September 1, 1998 : The Peace River Record Gazette reports that Daishowa is continuing with the appeal to overturn the Ontario Court ruling that allows people to organize a consumer boycott of Daishowa products. Friends of the Lubicon respond that there is no longer any boycott to shut down, and that Daishowa has no reason to worry about a boycott as long as they keep their promise.
* February 23, 1999 : The Alberta Provincial Government invites companies to submit "expressions of interest" in logging an area which includes a portion of Lubicon territory. Daishowa had returned "timber rights" in this portion to the province at about the time Daishowa made their commitment to not log Lubicon lands.
* February 25, 1999 : Daishowa-Marubeni International, along with the Whitefish, Loon, and government-created Woodland band, appear in an "expression of interest" to log the portion of Lubicon territory in which Daishowa had previously returned the "timber rights" to the province.
* May 28, 1999 : On May 28, 1999, Daishowa-Marubeni International (DMI) announces that it has signed a major five-year timber logging contract with Kee Tas Kee Now Logging Ltd. - a joint venture involving the Woodland, Loon and Whitefish Bands. Their contract stipulates that they log a minimum of 100,000 cubic metres of wood per year. Daishowa will then process the wood at their Peace River pulp mill.
However that is only part of the story. According to an informed source, DMI still retains "timber rights" in western half of the Lubicon traditional territory and has contracted out those "timber rights" to Kee Tas Kee Now. Whether the new logging consortium will act on those "rights" to log within the Lubicon traditional territory is not yet clear. What happens to Daishowa's commitment not to buy wood cut in Lubicon territory should their new partners move in to clear-cut unceded Lubicon territory is also unclear.
* June 1, 1999 : Hot on the heels of their logging deal, Daishowa serves the Friends with legal papers indicating that they are ready to go to court with their appeal of MacPherson J.'s ruling which declared the Daishowa boycott legal.
* May 4 , 2000 : An Ontario Court of Appeal panel of three judges entered into the court record a last-minute out-of-court settlement agreement between Daishowa and Friends of the Lubicon, whereby both parties abandoned their appeals and ended the five year legal dispute between Daishowa and the Friends of the Lubicon. The settlement agreement is at the top of this web page.
This archive contains links to documents relating to the Daishowa vs FOL court battle and events surrounding the case. Document links are listed in reverse chronological order. Please Note : The Lubicon Nation over the years has published detailed accounts and analyses of events relating to their dispute with Daishowa, to Daishowa logging on Lubicon land, to the Daishowa Boycott, and to the Daishowa vs. FoL lawsuit. Many of these Lubicon mailouts relating to these and other aspects of the Lubicon struggle are available on an off-site web-site called the "Lubicon Archive" and are located at http://www.nisto.com/cree/lubicon Please note the address for Lubicon Nation listed in many of the off-site documents referenced in the "Lubicon Archive" is not the current address. The documents refer to the old, now defunct, mailing address in Edmonton. The current mailing address is Daishowa vs FoL Court Dates May 4 & 5 Daishowa vs. FoL "Come to Court" Poster "Daishowa Boycott Appeal Postponed" Daishowa Seeks Ban On Right to Boycott (Court Dates Jan 11 & 12) Selling Out Lubicon Land Rights, Write Premier Klein re: Pending Timber Sale in Lubicon Traditional Territory, Supreme Court Decisions on Leafleting "Daishowa Builds Case in 27 Binders, Files Boycott Appeal" Legal Action Outlawing Boycotts Going Back to Court "Daishowa Involved in Proposal to Cut Lubicon Timber" Daishowa Attempts to Explain Appealing Against a Non-Existent Boycott Daishowa Off the Hook for Court Costs "Daishowa Continues with Appeal" "Daishowa Boycott did its Job" "Daishowa gives in, boycott called off" "Define Moratorium -- Lubicons" re: Daishowa's ambiguous commitment "Daishowa slippery on commitment" Possible Commitment from Daishowa Daishowa Appeals Trial Decision Daishowa Boycott Restarted "The Boycott is On" "An International Call : Boycott Daishowa" "Ten Day Deadline is Up Tomorrow" re: press conference to publicize action against Daishowa "Now is the time to act" - Write Chretien "Daishowa Given Ten Days to Make Commitment" "Consumer Boycotts Ruled Legal in Canada" Daishowa vs. FoL Trial Decision - complete text of the ruling In Anticipation of the Trial Decision Notice of FoL Press Conference Upon Release of Trial Decision April 14 "Speak No Evil" - Announcement of feature story on FOL David Suzuki, Patrick Watson, Alan Borovoy, Roberto Verdecchia re: Trial Daily Reports for the first 22 days of the 28 day Daishowa vs FoL Trial A Brief Chronology of the Court Case up to the Start of the Trial "Daishowa Boycott on Trial" "Supreme Court Refuses Appeal of Outlawed Consumer Boycott" Daishowa Demands TV Broadcast Cancellation, Crying Contempt of Court vs FoL, a CBC reporter & Clayton Ruby Daishowa : one of "Ten Worst" Corporations of 1996 says Multinational Monitor magazine "Daishowa and the Lubicon: Freedom of Expression Threatened and No One Says a Thing" "Friends of Lubicon Ask Supreme Court to Hear Appeal" "Are Consumer Boycotts Unlawful in Canada?" re: Supreme Court Appeal of Injunction "Daishowa Tries for Sierra Legal Defence Fund (SLDF) Gag Order" Friends of the Lubicon re: Daishowa Boycott and its Injunction "Daishowa's Position and the Friends of the Lubicon's Response"Daishowa vs the Lubicons & FoL Archive
P.O. Box 6731
Peace River, AB T8S 1S5
Phone: 403-629-3945
Fax: 403-629-3939
Daishowa vs. FoL Court Battle Ends
May 4/00 : FoL Web Posting
Mar 20/00 : FoL Web Posting
March 2000 : FoL Web Posting
Jan 13/00 : FoL Web Posting of a Grande Prairie Daily Herald Tribune article
Jan 4/00 : FoL Update
Oct 20/99 : Action Please
Sep 10/99 : Links to the decisions and Globe & Mail article
Jun 15/99 : Peace River Record-Gazette article
Jun 15/99 : FoL Web Posting
Apr 7/99 : CBC Radio News Transcript
March 26/99 : Daishowa letter to ALQ
Nov 10/98 : Peace River Record-Gazette article,
Sep 23/98 : FoL web posting with letters & article
Jun 18/98 : Toronto Star article
Jun 12/98 : FoL Press Release
Jun 9/98 : Edmonton Journal article
Jun 3/98 : FoL web posting
May 21/98 : Edmonton Journal & Edmonton Sun articles
May 12 /98 : Daishowa letter to FoL
Apr 24/98 : CBC Radio World Report Transcript
Apr 24/98 : FoL Press Statement made at a press conference
Apr 24/98 : FoL Press Release
Apr 23/98 : FoL Press Release"
Apr 16/98 : Action Please
Apr 14/98 : FOL Press Statement made at a press conference
Apr 14/98 : Sierra Legal Defence Fund Press Release
Apr 14/98 : Ontario Court of Justice, MacPherson J.
Apr 14/98 : CBC Radio World Report transcript
Apr 9/98 : FoL Press Release
Apr 7/98 : This Magazine
Sep 15/97 : Press Conference Transcript
Sep 2/97 - Nov 27/97, FoL web postings
Aug 29/97 : FoL Fact Sheet
Aug 28/97: FoL Press Release
Jun 20/97 : FoL Press Release
Jun 14/97 : Fol & Daishowa Letters and Transcript of TV Broadcast
Jan 8/97 : FoL Press Release
Dec 3/96 : Humanist Movement Press Service
Dec /96 : Essential Information article
Nov 12/96 : FoL Press Release
Nov 1996 : SLDF Newsletter
Apr 2/96 : Corporate Crime Reporter Interview
Jun /95 : FoL Fact Sheet
| Negotiations
| Protecting Land | Reports | Other Groups | Background | Contact