On July 25, 2025, the Specific Claims Tribunal released its decision in Day Star First Nation et al v His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, 2025 SCTC 5 ("Day Star"). Day Star is an important decision as it provides much needed clarity about the principles of equitable compensation for breaches of fiduciary duty in the specific claims context generally and in claims about the mismanagement of First Nations' funds in particular. The decision reinforces a core legal principle: equitable compensation is about restoring beneficiaries to the position they would have been in if the breach had not occurred. For First Nations, this means that compensation must reflect true lost opportunities – not minimized damages based on narrow or artificial measures.
What is Day Star about?
This claim was brought by four Treaty 4 First Nations in Saskatchewan – Day Star First Nation, Fishing Lake First Nation, George Gordon First Nation and Muskowekwan First Nation.
Under section 14 of the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, First Nations can bring claims for monetary compensation where the Crown has failed in its legal obligations relating to treaty promises, reserve lands, or the administration of First Nation assets. These grounds include breaches by Canada of treaty or statutory duties, illegal land dispositions, inadequate compensation for taken lands, and fraud by Crown agents.
This specific claim was about the misappropriation and mismanagement of the Nations' funds between 1920 and 1923 by Indian Agent John B. Hardinge. Hardinge engaged in what today would be recognized as fraud: moving money between accounts to disguise deficits, misusing trust funds to pay debts, and diverting proceeds from grain, cattle and land sales. Hardinge also coerced band members into signing Band Council Resolutions that authorized the "advance of funds to pay debts for stock and equipment", often under threat or intimidation.
When Hardinge's fraud came to light, Canada's response harmed the Nations even more. Instead of prosecuting him or reimbursing the Nations for the mismanaged funds, the Crown used the Nations' own trust funds – especially Fishing Lake's – to pay off debts Hardinge had created. This breached the Indian Act and Canada's fiduciary duties.
The key question of the claim before the Tribunal became: how should those historic losses be valued today? Canada admitted wrongdoing but argued for a much narrower measure of compensation than the Nations sought.
THE TRIBUNAL'S KEY FINDINGS ON EQUITABLE COMPENSATION
In Day Star, the Tribunal provides a detailed analysis of the principles of equitable compensation in the specific claims context and how to calculate compensation today for losses that occurred decades ago. The key issues before the Tribunal here: (1) what were the nominal losses and (2) how these are valued in present-day terms?
The Tribunal made key findings including that:
- Losses are Compensable: Even though some debts were initially tied to individuals, The Tribunal found that once Canada used communal trust funds to cover them, those became collective losses to First Nations.
- GDP Growth Model Rejected: The Tribunal rejected Canada's argument to tie damages to GDP growth, which would have drastically reduced compensation for First Nations.
- Band Trust Account Rate Applied: The Tribunal held that the proper measure was the Band Trust Account rate, compounded annually, ensuring that losses were valued fairly over time. This is significant, as it provides clarity for other First Nations as to how equitable compensation should be calculated.
- Losses are collective, not just individual: The Tribunal that once communal trust funds were misused, even if the money was used to pay individual debts, the harm was to the Nation as a whole and the Tribunal has jurisdiction under the Act.
These key findings are summarized in greater detail below.
Rejection of GDP-Based Valuation
Canada argued that damages should be calculated by tying them to growth in GDP per person, on the theory this reflected opportunities generally available to Canadians. The Tribunal firmly rejected this.
GDP is an average measure of how the Canadian economy grew, but it has little to do with how trust funds should have been managed. It ignores the fiduciary rule that losses must be valued as if funds had been put to their most advantageous use. By tying damages to GDP, Canada was essentially arguing that losses should only track the average economy, not what was truly lost. This would have meant compensation far below what the Nations actually missed out on.
The Tribunal also noted that GDP growth does not apply compounding in the same way interest does, so it understates the real cost of money being taken away over time. Finally, Canada argued that some money would likely have been "spent" if the Nations had access to it, but the Tribunal rejected this as contrary to fiduciary principles: the focus must be on the opportunity lost, not speculation about spending.
The Tribunal's rejection of the GDP-based valuation is important because, had Canada's GDP method been accepted, it would have become the default approach for valuing historic losses, cutting the value of damages across the board in future specific claims. By rejecting it, the Tribunal sent a clear message: First Nations are entitled to compensation that recognizes the full scale of their lost opportunities, not watered-down averages that minimize Canada's liability.
Rejection of the Canada Pension Plan Analogy
The Nations argued for a two-stage calculation for compensation: first, apply Band Trust Account rates until 2000, and then use Canada Pension Plan ("CPP") returns afterward. Their point was that the CPP demonstrates how trust-like funds, managed prudently for Canadians, could grow over time.
While this approach would have led to higher compensation, the Tribunal rejected it because under the Indian Act and the Financial Administration Act, Canada did not have the legal authority at the time to invest First Nations' funds in securities like stocks and bonds. The Tribunal stressed that fiduciary obligations must be understood in the context of the law as it existed. Equity cannot impose duties that contradict statute.
On one hand, the Tribunal's rejection of this approach was disappointing – it meant that Nations could not rely on the higher CPP returns. On the other hand, the Tribunal's reasoning provides important clarity: equitable compensation must be rooted in legal reality. This helps avoid uncertainty and ensures that future claims are assessed consistently. It also underscores how restrictive Canada's laws were: while Canadians benefited from modern investment strategies through the CPP, First Nations were denied those same opportunities. That in itself is a reminder of systemic inequity.
Application of Band Trust Account Rate on a Compound Basis
In the end, the Tribunal concluded that the proper measure was a Band Trust Account rate, compounded annually. This was the mechanism Canada was legally supposed to use to hold First Nations' funds, and compounding ensures the time value of money is fully recognized.
Compounding is critical. Without it, Nations would simply get back the nominal amounts lost, ignoring decades of lost growth. With compounding, the Nations are recognized as having lost not just the original funds but also the ability to build wealth over generations. The Tribunal also dismissed Canada's suggestion that benefits (such as farm equipment) should reduces damages, noting that partial offsets are inconsistent with the purpose of equitable compensation.
By applying the Band Trust Account rate on a compounding basis, the Tribunal ensured that compensation actually reflects the harm suffered. For First Nations, this means that they are not short-changed by being repaid in outdated dollars but are instead restored to the position they would have been in if the money had been properly managed.
Recognition of Individual vs. Collective Losses
A preliminary – but important – issue for the Tribunal was determining the nature of the losses suffered and if these were compensable under the Specific Claims Tribunal Act. Canada argued that any losses were not compensable under the Act, because they were "individual losses" (debts incurred by specific Band members) and that the Specific Claims Tribunal Act only authorizes compensation for First Nations as collective entities, not for individual members' losses.
The Tribunal firmly rejected Canada's position on two grounds. First, it held that the Specific Claims Tribunal Act must be read broadly and remedially, particularly in light of its reconciliation-focused preamble. To interpret it narrowly would defeat its purpose. Second, the Tribunal found that once Canada used communal trust funds to cover individual debts, those debts became collective losses. In other words, the harm was not just to individuals, but to the Nation as a whole.
This finding by the Tribunal is important because it ensures that Canada cannot escape responsibility by re-labelling harms as "individual". It closes a potential loophole that could have excluded many kinds of claims. For First Nations, it is an important recognition that when community funds are misused, the loss is collective, and the community is entitled to full compensation.
WHY THIS DECISION MATTERS
Overall, the Day Star decision is a positive development for First Nations. The decision is important because it clarifies how compensation is calculated when Canada mismanages First Nations' trust funds.
The Tribunal made several findings that will shape future claims:
- Compensation must reflect real losses: The Tribunal confirmed that when Canada breaches its fiduciary duties, First Nations are entitled to be restored to the position they would have been in if the breach had not happened. This means compensation must account for the opportunities that were taken away, not just provide a minimal amount.
- No GDP Shortcut: Canada argued that compensation should be based on general economic growth (GDP). The Tribunal rejected this approach because it would have greatly reduced the value of the losses. This is significant because it prevents Canada from using national averages to downplay the actual harms done to specific Nations.
- CPP Analogy does not apply: The Nations suggested using Canada Pension Plan returns to calculate growth. The Tribunal explained that, while this might better reflect how money should have grown, Canada's laws at the time did not allow such investments. This matters because it shows that equitable compensation must be consistent with the laws that existed, while still ensuring fairness.
- Losses are collective, not just individual: Canada argued that because some of the money was used to pay individual debts, the losses were not covered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal disagreed, finding that once communal trust funds were misused, the harm was to the Nation as a whole. This is important because it closes a loophole that could have allowed Canada to avoid responsibility for serious breaches of trust.
This decision makes clear that compensation cannot be reduced through accounting formulas or narrow legal arguments. Instead, the focus must remain on fairness and on restoring what was lost. For Indigenous communities pursuing specific claims, Day Star strengthens the path toward justice and ensures Canada is held accountable for the real impacts of past mismanagement.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
