A Canadian seafood tycoon’s financial troubles have turned into a debate over who gets to decide what happens to his art collection, which includes dozens of Indigenous artifacts that some experts say should be returned to their communities of origin.
John Risley, the billionaire businessman who cofounded Clearwater Seafoods, is caught up in a dispute over hundreds of artworks and antiques following the collapse of his investment company, CFFI Ventures, which entered creditor protection in March with nearly $1 billion in debt.
Among the objects ensnared in the proceedings are roughly 30 Indigenous artifacts, including baskets, moccasins, textiles, and bone carvings. According to the Canadian Press outlet CBC, which first reported the concerns, some are attributed to Inuit, Mi’kmaq, or Cree makers, while others have the vague identifier “Indigenous” and no listed artist or date.
That lack of information has prompted calls from repatriation experts for Indigenous communities to be consulted before the objects change hands.
Cody Groat, a history and Indigenous studies professor at Western University, told the Canadian Press that the dispute raises broader questions about when Indigenous nations should have a say in the sale of objects associated with their cultural heritage. He believes the best outcome would be for culturally significant objects to be returned to their communities.
Risley, however, disputes the idea that his collection contains objects that should to be repatriated.
He told the Canadian Press that he supports repatriation in principle but believes his acquisitions were made through reputable dealers and auction houses, where culturally sensitive material would already have attracted scrutiny.
“Our collection would not include any such pieces,” he said, adding that dealers and auction houses have little interest in handling objects that might raise repatriation concerns.
The Canadian Museums Association’s Indigenous Council disagrees with his reasoning. In a statement to the Canadian Press, the council argued that Indigenous communities themselves are best equipped to determine the cultural importance of such objects, rather than collectors, dealers, or museums.
The spat comes as Risley’s creditors attempt to recover money from the collapse of CFFI Ventures.
In September, a Nova Scotia court approved the transfer of most of the company’s assets to New Tide Capital, an affiliate of New York–based HPS Investment Partners, which held most of CFFI’s debt.
The assets included a collection of more than 1,200 artworks and antiques valued at approximately $8.1 million. Among them were more than 95 paintings by Canadian folk artist Maud Lewis, works by members of the Group of Seven, and pieces by Inuit artists Jessie Oonark and Irene Avaalaaqiaq Tiktaalaaq.
But the ownership of 669 objects became a separate point of contention. Risley maintains that those works belong to him personally rather than to his company. A lawyer for New Tide told the court that the firm would seek to resolve the dispute privately.
The Indigenous artifacts appear on that disputed list.
Canada has no comprehensive legal framework governing the repatriation of Indigenous cultural objects, and private collections present particular challenges. Unlike museums, which often face pressure to disclose their holdings and investigate provenance, private collectors generally aren’t under a similar obligation.
Lauren Wheeler, executive director of the Canadian Museums Association, told the CBC that the limited information available about Risley’s holdings illustrates how hard it can be to identify culturally significant objects in private hands.
The association has developed guidance encouraging museums to work with Indigenous communities to identify and return objects acquired through coercion, forced displacement, or other questionable circumstances. Wheeler thinks private collectors should follow similar practices.
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, a national organization representing the Inuit in Canada, has also offered to help examine any potentially significant Inuit objects in the collection and facilitate their return where appropriate.
For now, there’s no proof that the Indigenous artifacts in Risley’s collection were improperly acquired, nor has a specific community established a claim to any of the objects identified in the court proceedings.