It will likely become a landmark legal case but the final day of arguments in the Brantford versus natives bylaws and injunctions court mash-up ended Friday with a bit of a whimper rather than a bang.
After lawyers for the natives made final submissions and arguments, Justice Harrison Arrell affirmed that his existing order of a temporary injunction would remain in place for now and he thanked the many lawyers who have been a part of the long process.
"I'll have a decision as soon as I possibly can," he said.
Court observers estimated that it will take months for the judge to wade through boxes of submissions and case law.
The case is a legal morass where the city is pushing for an injunction against native protesters and the natives are fighting that injunction and seeking to quash the city's anti-protesting bylaws that were quietly passed in 2007.
Along with the injunctions and bylaws, the case covers aboriginal rights, constitutional rights, the charter of rights and treaty rights.
One lawyer predicted the case will be carefully examined and read for years to come.
The judge has been highly circumspect about revealing how he feels about the case. He has made few comments and asked few questions, instead dedicating his time to taking copious notes.
He granted the city a temporary injunction almost two years ago and, one year ago, he ordered both sides, plus the government of Ontario, to sit down and try to negotiate some kind of agreement.
That process failed and Brantford eventually called a halt to the consultation, bringing everyone back to the courtroom. No one will discuss what went on during those negotiations. Even Arrell hasn't been told what was or wasn't accomplished over that year.
At stake is a motion from the city to demand money from native protesters, quashing the city's two-year-old anti-protesting bylaws and the injunction against protesters like Floyd and Ruby Montour, native lawyer Aaron Detlor and Hazel Hill, who works for the Haudenosaunee Development Institute.
Outside the courthouse, Jessica Orkin, lawyer for Detlor, noted that while Brantford was granted an interim injunction against eight people protesting at a handful of development sites, the judge will be ruling on what the city is pushing for a more permanent injunction that covers all native protests in the entire city.
"The Haudenosaunee have made it clear they want to be consulted. They have interests that must be acknowledged and dealt with but the city has taken a position that it can, by passing laws, create a Constitution-free zone."
Her colleague, Lou Strezos, who represents the HDI, was even harsher in his assessment of Brantford.
"The position of the HDI is that the unfortunate litigation path chose by the City of Brantford has created a fracture in the treaty relationship that will take years, if not decades, to repair."
Even the city's lawyer seemed to be urging conciliation as months of work was being packed into cars.
"Both sides need to move forward by taking a step back and revisiting the issues," said Neal Smitheman.
"Litigation is the last resort. It can provide a temporary but not a lasting solution. Maybe now that everyone's had a chance to vent and put their positions forward, maybe all sides will start to rethink their positions and the litigation can be a catharsis."
During the last few hours in front of the judge, Orkin and lawyer Paul LeVay, who represents Hazel Hill, argue that Brantford's bylaws were illegally passed.
LeVay cited a Supreme Court case that warned changes in the law should be made with caution and transparency.
"Even closed meetings are subjected to some scrutiny," said LeVay.
He added that the presence of the police chief in council's in camera meeting meant it wasn't a closed council session and that appropriate notice wasn't given to the public about what was going to happen.
And Orkin reiterated her contention that the bylaw language was far too all-encompassing to be appropriate.
"The breadth of what's being described in the bylaws has placed a great chill on the native community," said Orkin.
Arrell declined to expand the temporary injunction he put in place back in June 2008. Instead, he made clear that the existing order would remain in place while he makes his decision.
At the end of it all, the remaining six lawyers --several had been excused as the week wore on --shook hands all around and carted out about 18 file boxes of briefs, affidavits and motions.