By Andrew Nurse
This put up is a part of the Indian Act 150 sequence.
On March 11, 2026, Saskatchewan Court docket of King’s Bench Justice D.E. Labach issued a abstract judgement towards Darryl Leroux.1 The difficulty was whether or not Leroux, a widely known authority on “self-indigenization,” had defamed Michelle Coupal, a Canada Analysis Chair on the College of Saskatchewan, as a result of he urged Coupal used a pretend Indigenous identification to advance her profession. The Court docket dominated he had and awarded Coupal $70,000.00 in damages. This case was, as journalist Jorge Barrera wrote, “no random historic train.” Its particulars are vital for historians as a result of they illustrate how the very insurance policies which can be supposed to maneuver Canada and First Peoples towards reconciliation—on this case, a land settlement—carry with them odd, probably even weird, implications for the observe of historical past that serve to reinscribe the very colonialism they search to beat. Historical past is already a battleground within the reconciliation course of. Coupal v. Leroux illustrates how a battle over household histories is related to Indigenous identities and land claims.
The info of Coupal v. Leroux are usually not in query. Coupal was born to a non-Indigenous household with no connection to any Indigenous neighborhood. She was additionally raised with very particular household lore a few great-grandparent, certainly one of whose mother and father was supposedly Indigenous. On this foundation, Coupal started to self-identify as Métis whereas instructing at Laurentian College, the place she was tenured and promoted earlier than being appointed to a Canada Analysis Chair centered on Fact and Reconciliation training on the College of Saskatchewan in 2018.
As Decide Labach’s resolution explains, over time, Coupal shifted her self-identification from Métis to Algonquin and have become a member of the Bonnechere Algonquin First Nation (BAFN), an unrecognized Indigenous neighborhood. As Labach defined in his ruling, this was partially as a result of “she was made conscious that it was politically incorrect to establish as Metis due to objections by the Pink River Metis in Manitoba.” For causes the transcript doesn’t clarify, Coupal “reached out” to the BAFN to use for membership initially, it appears, primarily based on household lore. After her software, the BAFN knowledgeable Coupal that her household traditions have been inaccurate. What this meant was that the great-great-grandparent she believed to be Indigenous was not. However she was advised she may nonetheless declare Indigeneity as a result of one other distant relative—mid-nineteenth-century Thomas Lagarde—was. Lagarde certified as an “Algonquin ancestor” underneath an enrollment course of began to outline beneficiaries to the Algonquins of Ontario (AOO) land settlement negotiations. There’s a vary of standards that set up an “Algonquin ancestor,” however one is that the claimant should be related by household to an historic member of the family who was Algonquin.
It seems that Lagarde was not Indigenous, however the mistake had actual implications. Over 1,000 Algonquin identification claims—that carry with them the proper to take part within the AOO land settlement—rested on recognition of Lagarde alone as an Indigenous root ancestor. The controversy was triggered by the standards of the land settlement course of. In 1983, Algonquin communities petitioned the crown for recognition of conventional lands. By 1992, each the federal and provincial governments had agreed to barter a land settlement. For his or her components, each ranges of presidency needed to create a long-lasting settlement. Thus, as a part of the settlement, they needed all potential particular person Algonquin claimants vetted and registered so no additional future claims could possibly be made. To this finish, an umbrella group—the AOO—was created to qualify Algonquin identification claims primarily based on a sequence of standards. The factors have been topic to debate, however all claims require a “root Algonquin ancestor,” somebody in a direct household line who was Algonquin.
In 1999, the AOO initially accredited Lagarde as a possible root ancestor, a choice that was instantly controversial. This approval was reversed by “an inside screening committee” in 2000, then reversed once more in 2000, earlier than it was challenged once more in 2011. Within the meantime, there have been elevated considerations concerning the claims course of and whether or not its standards have been too free. The free course of, some believed, reworked individuals who had no demonstrable Indigenous heritage into Algonquin, at the least for the needs of the Settlement course of. In response, in 2013, the AOO employed retired Ontario Superior Court docket Decide James Chadwick to evaluate a sequence of controversial root ancestors on which identification claims have been primarily based. He decided that Lagarde was Indigenous primarily based nearly fully on proof supplied by William Mann, a civil servant, Freemason, and conspiracy theorist.
Mann believed that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene, with whom he had youngsters, and fled Palestine. In Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code, Jesus and Mary come to stay in France. Mann appears to consider that later descendants of Christ had moved to Montana, the place they lived with Native People. Mann had lengthy believed he was Indigenous, and Thomas Lagarde was central to his perception. The proof he supplied to Chadwick consisted of a copy of a letter, the provenance of which is unclear, though it bore the stamp of an archive in Quebec. Chadwick assessed the copy. The letter, dated 1845, purports to be from a priest named Brunet. In a single sentence, the letter refers to a Thomas Lagarde who was a Mason—like Mann—of Algonquin descent and who had been sentenced to loss of life for some unknown crime. Within the letter, the priest claimed to have met Lagarde at a small mission close to Ottawa. Chadwick discovered this proof convincing.
For a variety of causes, others didn’t. First, nobody has been capable of finding the unique doc. It’s not within the archive whose stamp it bears, nor has it been present in every other archive to this point, even after intensive searches. There are additionally issues with the handwriting, the letter’s terminology, and the occasions it describes. Lagarde, as an example, had beforehand been despatched to jail for debt, however he was by no means underneath a loss of life sentence. What’s extra, apart from this letter, there isn’t a empirical proof that Lagarde was Algonquin.2 He and his household have now been topic to intensive genealogical analysis as a part of the AOO land settlement course of. Analysis into the Lagarde household, together with Thomas’ ancestors and his descendants, has turned up no proof of Indigeneity. Analysis into household historical past, baptismal data, Algonquin petitions, census data, Indigenous communities, marriage, and fur commerce data turns up no proof that Lagarde was Indigenous nor related to an Indigenous neighborhood.
Joan Holmes, AOO Enrolment Officer, put collectively this data, and on its foundation, Lagarde was once more faraway from the listing of potential root ancestors by one other physique—the Algonquin Tribunal—set as much as re-assess a number of controversial instances in 2023.
There’s a lot to be involved about within the Coupal v. Leroux case. It could set one thing of a precedent. It’s not the one go well with searching for damages after allegations of Indigenous identification fraud. Some Indigenous students are involved that the judgement opened a loophole. Importantly, Coupal didn’t argue that she is Indigenous, however that she actually believed she was, first on the premise of household lore after which on the premise of the AOO enrolment course of, which used Lagarde as a root ancestor. Labach discovered that this was an sincere perception and, therefore, not an act of deception. The priority is that it offers a again door into false Indigenous identification claims as a result of it creates a ready-made excuse—in impact, “I actually believed what I mentioned was true.”
I’ll go away it to people who find themselves higher knowledgeable than I’m to handle the authorized points on this case. To me, it additionally has vital historic implications. Within the first occasion, the historical past of Lagarde’s shifting identification and its results is a product of the AOO land settlement course of on which the state insisted. What seems like a dramatic progress in pretendianism is one other facet of this, however it was the state’s want for a once-and-forever settlement—versus, say, an ongoing collaborative relationship—that led to the formation of the AOO and the enrolment course of within the first place.
It additionally highlights a course of that re-legalizes Indigenous identification and makes the courts and tribunals the arbiters of historical past. The difficulty could be each who makes the choices concerning the previous and the way. The unique resolution to approve Lagarde as an Algonquin ancestor was primarily based on at finest shaky historic methodology. Even when we omit the remarkably vital query of precisely who must be making choices about identification, the unique resolution to simply accept a doc of unknown provenance, which had not been assessed for inside consistency, as authoritative just about ensures interpretive errors.
The historical past will get even odder. The one different proof that Lagarde was Algonquin comes from troubling household traditions that can not be verified. One declare to Indigeneity for Lagarde, as an example, was made primarily based on the truth that a descendant trapped, hunted, and lived off the land. This type of declare bears an odd similarity to claims for Indigenous heritage made on behalf of Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, related to her father’s supposed “wild” behaviour and “consuming issues.” In these cases, household histories are being diminished to disturbing stereotypes.
Thomas Lagarde’s historical past will get much more weird. For Mann, the truth that Lagarde was supposedly a Mason appears of specific significance. It created some wider connection to history-as-conspiracy by which the descendants of Jesus Christ discovered their approach to Montana to stay with Native People.
Leroux will enchantment this resolution, however it raises one additional query. What does it imply to be mistaken concerning the previous? This occurs on a regular basis. I’ve made errors in my very own work, and a part of the obligation of historians is to revisit the previous to provide extra correct variations of it. I believe that occurs. I’m wondering, nonetheless, if all errors are the identical. Kim TallBear as soon as mentioned that Indigenous identification fraud—making a false declare to be Indigenous—was a “ultimate act” of colonialism. It each robbed Indigenous peoples of their identification and their capacity to regulate it. I do consider Coupal, though I’ve different questions I’d ask if given the prospect. In Coupal v. Leroux, Decide Labach appropriately famous that she didn’t forge any paperwork. What occurred could be much more regarding. She grew to become a part of an historic course of that appears set as much as misread the previous.
Andrew Nurse is a Professor of Canadian Research at Mount Allison College.
This sequence was produced inside the mission Historicizing Our Instances: Histories of Migration and Local weather within the Digital Area, which is supported partially by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Analysis Council.
Observe: The title citation is drawn from Jorge Barrera, “Why a decades-old dispute over Algonquin ancestry is the important thing to a metropolis corridor controversy,” CBC Information (February 18, 2021) <https://www.cbc.ca/information/canada/ottawa/algonquins-of-ontario-identity-membership-1.5910334>. Accessed March 24, 2026.
[1] A abstract judgement is a selected type of judgement. It happens when the courtroom determines that it has the knowledge it must make an neutral resolution with out the necessity of trial. This will happen for a couple of trigger, however one motive is that the protagonists of the method search it. That was the scenario on this case. Each Coupal and Leroux requested that the method be expedited by abstract judgement primarily based on proof and affidavits they submitted.
[2] There’s some household lore. One later descendant believes Lagarde was Indigenous primarily based on supposedly listening to their mom converse Algonquin.
Associated
