I  read the judgment yesterday, and this is how I interpreted it.

1. The Federal government wanted to provide additional welfare services to 'Indians' on reserves, and they contracted with the provincial governments to provide these services, given the provincial governments' existing experience in providing such services.  The agreement between the governments stipulated that these additional services would only be provided to 'Indian' Bands after the Bands were consulted.
2. The Federal government did not consult the Bands, and the provincial governments provided the services, one of them being foster/adoptive care of children at risk.
3. Two written submissions from a Band chief and council member stated ( 49 years after the fact) that if they had been consulted, they would have informed the fostered/adopted children of their parents' culture, and that they would be welcome to come back to the reserve.
4. Since the children were not informed, this is considered damage.

continued..