January 9, 2026 Cross-Examination Transcript of Julien Castonguay
Press Release
⦁ — Upon resuming at 9:30 a.m.
2 REGISTRY OFFICER: We are back on record.
⦁ Today is Friday, January 9th, 2026, in the matter of the
⦁ Mississaugas of the Credit First Nations and the Attorney
⦁ General of Canada. Thank you.
6 MEMBER LUSTIG: Hey, Mr. Luxat.
7 MR. LUXAT: Yeah, thank you. We, we had
⦁ discussed that, Mr. Elson will be or may be objecting to
⦁ the admissibility of certain portions of Mr. Castonguay’s
10 evidence in his closing submissions. One thing I had said
10 in my letter to the Tribunal is that one of the positions
10 Canada might take is that if a portion of Mr. Castonguay’s
10 evidence is excluded then the reason for his evidence in
10 the first place should be excluded as well, which was the
10 evidence entered on the record with respect to the amount
10 of education-related funding that’s been provided through
10 Jordan’s Principle.
18 I just want to clarify that that position
19 will essentially be that if a portion of Mr. Castonguay’s
19 evidence is excluded, we will likely be saying that all of
19 his evidence should be excluded because I might be
19 introducing — just so it’s not — it doesn’t we don’t end
19 up with a cherry-picked record where there’s a portion
19 that’s excluded and then some straggling bits that paint a
19 misleading picture.
INTERNATIONAL REPORTING INC.
1 So I just wanted to put that on the
⦁ record to make sure everybody’s aware that that may be one
⦁ of the positions the Attorney General of Canada is taking
⦁ for procedural fairness records, just so it’s on the
⦁ record.
6 MEMBER LUSTIG: And that’s, you know, not
⦁ to be determined until we get to the submissions, correct?
⦁ So we don’t need to deal with it today?
9 MR. LUXAT: No.
10 MEMBER LUSTIG: Okay. All right, unless
11 there’s anything from you, Mr. Elson, on that, I’m willing
11 to Have the witness come back, and we can get on with the
11 examination and cross-examination.
14 MR. ELSON: No, I mean, on that broader
15 topic, I anticipate objecting to the documents, those two
15 documents being marked as exhibits, and we’ll propose when
15 that takes place that the questions be asked on those
15 documents, and then a ruling be made as to whether they’re
15 admissible or not. So they could be marked for
15 identification purposes. And that’s just further to our
15 conversation at the end of the day yesterday about those
15 two documents and my concern that they’d be let in, willy-
15 nilly, for any use whatsoever.
24 I can address that when the time comes
25 but I just thought I would flag that, seeing as the
⦁ topic’s up and Mr. Castonguay is already excluded.
2 MR. LUXAT: That’s — Member Lustig, if I
⦁ could, that’s not consistent with my understanding of our
⦁ discussion yesterday. I’d understood it would be entered
⦁ as an exhibit, and that but the issue of admissibility
⦁ could be addressed in closing submissions. So I fully
⦁ understand that Mr. Elson will be making an argument that
⦁ it’s not admissible and it should be excluded from the
⦁ record, and that’s fine.
10 But I don’t think there’s — I’d rather
11 leave that issue to the closing submissions rather than
11 asking the Tribunal to rule on its admissibility now. I’d
11 rather it go in as an exhibit, and I fully understand that
11 the Tribunal will later have to decide whether it should
11 be removed from the record.
16 MEMBER LUSTIG: Yeah, that was my
17 understanding, too, Mr. Elson, that we weren’t going to
17 deal with this with respect to a ruling today. It was
17 going to be as a consequence of submissions.
20 You’re free obviously to raise the issue,
21 and that’s what I thought you were going to do when the
21 evidence is submitted, today presumably in the course of
21 the examination. But I wasn’t expecting to get into a
21 ruling today on administration.
25 MR. ELSON: No, and that’s fair, Member
⦁ Lustig, and that’s certainly the case with respect to
⦁ testimony.
3 And with respect to the documents, at the
⦁ end of the day yesterday I indicated that I’m in a bit of
⦁ a bind because I won’t know what to object to without
⦁ knowing what portions of the documents are going to be
⦁ replied on. And so that just puts me in a difficult
⦁ position, and so I was proposing that the documents be
⦁ marked for identification purpose, and at some point the
10 Respondent indicate what’s being relied on so that we can
10 fairly object to it.
12 MR. LUXAT: What I would suggest there is
13 that it’s going to be very clear what we’re relying on in
13 the first place, but that if there’s any additional
13 elements that are being relied upon, obviously Mr. Elson
13 could raise admissibility issues in reply after he
13 receives our closing written submissions. And so I don’t
13 see the need for constructing an elaborate process.
19 MR. ELSON: Yeah, that’s fine. I mean,
20 that works for me. And I guess we would be marking it as
20 an exhibit with a caveat because typically you would mark
20 it for identification purposes or something else if there
20 was a question around the admissibility, but I think it’s
20 clear on the record now, the purposes and how it’s being
20 marked. And so I think we’re on the same page, and that’s
ILR4
