Offended by the concepts of the treaties, Cree chiefs resisted them. Big Bear refused to sign Treaty 6 until starvation among his people forced his hand in 1882.

From wiki.

Does that qualify it as unilateral, or only one party benefits?

A contract must show Intent to contract, or an offer to contract is extended, someone Accepts the Offer, without duress, without coercion or without being compelled AT ALL, the contract offers EQUAL consideration of both parties resources, meaning that both parties are to gain and both are putting something substantial to the other party's offer. Without these things it cannot be called an Agreement, only an Imposition, only an Order, only a dictatorship indeed.

The thin veneer that covers these contracts and glosses them as Lawful or Agreement peels off effortlessly, exposing that for example the Natives had no concept of land ownership yet the treaties are primarily centered on land ownership, which demonstrates that there wasn't any "accord" only the appearance of accord, in reality what was agreed to was to allow the Queen to use their lands, not to buy them or to own them and among others the promise to provide schools or teachers, not to make the native's culture and heritage illegal and force assimilation, a thoroughly failed experiment, and such actions display the disparaging chasm between what the two parties interpretations of the terms were, and that is not even touching on the fact that there was no Equal Consideration of both parties resources, it was very much One Sided and will always remain One Sided solely because the Dominating Winner, the Queen afforded nothing to the Natives that could replace their land or could be equal consideration.