GRE co-founder loses constitutional challenge

Ken Hill of Six Nations argued Ontario law has no jurisdiction in his custody and support battle

A co-founder of a Six Nations cigarette manufacturer has lost his bid to have a custody and support battle tossed out of court on the grounds that Ontario’s Family Law Act infringes on his Indigenous rights.

Ken Hill, who helped found Grand River Enterprises in Ohsweken, is a member of the Haudenosaunee people and the Six Nations of the Grand River, and he lives on the Six Nations reserve.

He argued the Haudenosaunee people have an inherent right to govern themselves “with respect to the care and support of children and the resolution of disputes within and between families concerning such care and support,” and that this right has never been given away by treaty to any other government.

Hill is involved in a dispute over custody, child support and spousal support with Brittany Beaver of Waterloo relating to an eight-yearold child they have together. The case is being heard in Kitchener family court.

They were in a relationship from 2008 to 2013, although they disagree over the amount of time they actually lived together during their relationship.

Beaver is seeking an order that would require Hill to pay her $85,701 a month in spousal support, just over $33,000 a month in child support and 100 per cent of their child’s expenses, retroactive in each case to the date of their separation.

She’s also seeking an order for financial disclosure from Hill and an order that would require an outside expert to provide an income determination of Hill.

According to a court ruling released earlier this month, Hill indicated he earns an income of $2,109,504 per year, which is not subject to income tax. He also stated he holds various other business interests on Six Nations, but those have “a nominal value.”

Since 2012, Hill has been providing Beaver with $10,000 cash per month in support and he stated he has also been providing more than $4,000 per month to cover expenses for his child.

In 2014, Hill purchased a house in Waterloo for $895,000 where Beaver resides with their child, her new partner and a child she’s had with her new partner. The property is being held in trust for Hill and Beaver’s child.

A 2006 Spectator investigation revealed that Grand River Enterprises built itself into a global player in the cigarette market, with annual sales that may have exceeded $300 million by the mid-2000s.

After several attempts to delay a case conference hearing with Beaver, Hill filed a constitutional challenge in March 2016, arguing for the first time in the case that his Indigenous rights were being violated and that Ontario courts have no jurisdiction over the case.

Hill argued he has the right “to be governed, and to have this dispute resolved, according to the laws and governance of the Haudenosaunee and the people of the Six Nations of the Grand River.”

In her response, Beaver noted that while she and her child are part of the Tuscarora nation, she has never observed the traditional native practices of the Haudenosaunee culture and that Hill “did not do so either during their five-year relationship.”

She also noted that she lives with their child in Waterloo, not on the Six Nations reserve.

Hill countered that they reside within the Haldimand Tract, which is land granted to the people of Six Nations that has never been “legally surrendered.” He also argued that Haudenosaunee law applies to any of its people who live within the Haldimand Tract and not just those living on the reserve.

Justice Deborah Chappel rejected Hill’s arguments and ruled that his Indigenous rights’ claim was overly broad and provided no supporting evidence.

“He wishes to compel both the court and (Beaver) to embark upon a complex, expensive and likely very protracted litigation journey with no clear map, no set destination and no end in sight,” Chappel stated, “a proposition which the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly stated should not be entertained.”

Chappel also ruled that Ontario family court is the proper jurisdiction for the case.

“It cannot be taken as a given that Aboriginal laws and decision-making processes are infringed simply by the fact of an Ontario court taking jurisdiction and applying Ontario Family Law,” Chappel ruled.

“It is not a given that one set of processes and approaches interferes with or undermines the other.”

Harold Niman, Beaver’s lawyer, said his client is satisfied with Chappel’s ruling but frustrated that the case has dragged on for nearly four years so far.

“It’s unfortunate the case has been derailed by Mr. Hill in this way,” said Niman. “This was a very detailed scholarly analysis of the issues and Mr. Hill certainly received a fair hearing on the issues.”

Hill’s lawyer did not respond to a request seeking comment.

It is not a given that one set of processes and approaches interferes with or undermines the other. JUSTICE DEBORAH CHAPPEL