Restoule v Canada is a legal case in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that considers whether the Augmentation clause in the 1850 Robinson Treaties entitles the Anishinaabe to an increase in annuity payments.[1] Justice Patricia Hennessy presided over the case, which featured the Anishinaabe First Nation as plaintiffs and the Attorneys General of Ontario and of Canada as defendants.The said William Benjamin Robinson, on behalf of Her Majesty, who desires to deal liberally and justly with all Her subjects, further promises and agrees that in case the territory hereby ceded by the parties of the second part shall at any future period produce an amount which will enable the Government of this Province, without incurring loss, to increase the annuity hereby secured to them, then and in that case the same shall be augmented from time to time, provided that the amount paid to each individual shall not exceed the sum of one pound Provincial currency in any one year, or such further sum as Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to order (the “Augmentation Clause”)[8]Restoule v. Canada centered around interpreting two treaties, the Robinson Huron Treaty and the Robinson Superior Treaty, both from 1850.The Ontario Superior Court also argues that the Skene letter and subsequent documentation does not support the Anishinaabe's claim that the Crown is obligated to raise the annuity payments.[16] The Robinson treaties included an augmentation clause to satisfy the Anishinaabe's expectations and reduce the Crown's financial and administrative burden.[17] The Colborne Policy limited cash payment to individuals, so Robinson likely set a low amount to comply with the Chiefs’ pressure.