If they don’t ask for damages the implication is that there’s no damage that needs restitution so no action is necessary from the courts to address the zero harm.

Reasonable people understand that damage must be caused before restitution, and as you pointed out there is currently zero harm done and a small representation of the Indigenous population in Ontario is trying to sue for 100 million for the bills simply being passed.

"how they were passed without respect to First Nations" is answered simply by "That is how our Government works. Your opinion is heard at election time and the Government does not need to consult you on each individual bill and you don't get to sue over any of it without damage being caused."

As I said, I support protesting and challenging the bills in higher courts. But suing for damages when no damage has been caused to create "Sort of a penalty, if you will, on the Crown for failure to act honourably," is absolutely absurd.

There is a reason why only 9 groups signed on.

Villify these folk however you want but they’re the only thing standing between us and Canada cranking up the climate crisis. I support them 100%>>

I am not vilifying anyone. I am pointing out that this is an unsupportable case and gave my reasons why. You are free to challenge my points, and hopefully explain how a case with zero damages shouldn't be immediately thrown out of court.