relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples that has
evolved into a unique and important fiduciary relationship.
 It is also beyond dispute that given such close and trust-like proximity it was foreseeable that a failure on Canada’s part
to take reasonable care might cause loss or harm to aboriginal
peoples, including their children. As the Supreme Court noted
in Cooper v. Hobart, by looking at the “expectations” and “
interests involved” the court can evaluate “the closeness of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant” and can
“determine whether it is just and fair having regard to that relationship to impose a duty of care in law upon the defendant”.39
 Even in the absence of s. 2(2) and the obligation to
consult, Canadian law, during the time period in question,
“accepted” that Canada’s care and welfare of the aboriginal peoples was a “political trust of the highest obligation”.40 And there
can be no doubt that the aboriginal peoples’ concern to protect
and preserve their aboriginal identity was and remains an
interest of the highest importance. As the Divisional Court put
it: “[ i]t is difficult to see a specific interest that could be of more
importance to aboriginal peoples than each person’s essential
connection to their aboriginal heritage”.41
 The content of the 1965 agreement and Canada’s clear
obligation to consult and secure the signified concurrence of
the affected Indian band before the child welfare regime was
extended to that reserve reinforces the conclusion that the proximity criterion is easily satisfied on the evidence herein and that
it is indeed just and fair to impose a duty of care upon the
defendant. All the more so when the focus of the extended child
welfare regime was a highly vulnerable group, namely, children
in need of protection. I therefore find that a prima facie duty of
care has been established.
 I can now turn to the second stage of the Anns-Cooper
analysis. In my view, Canada has not advanced any credible
39 Cooper, supra, note 37, at para. 34.
40 In St. Ann’s Island Shooting and Fishing Club Ltd. v. Canada,  S.C.R.
211,  S.C.J. No. 2, at p. 219 S.C.R., the Supreme Court described the
aboriginal peoples as “wards of the state, whose care and welfare are a political trust of the highest obligation”. The language used was paternalistic
and condescending, but according to the Supreme Court it was the “accepted
view” in the 1950s — a view that at the very least acknowledged the historic
partnership between the Federal Crown and the First Nations and the
importance of respecting the latter’s way of life.
41 Brown v. Canada (Attorney General),  O.J. No. 5739, 2014 ONSC
6967 (Div. Ct.), supra, at para. 30.