{"id":138861,"date":"2025-08-12T05:29:14","date_gmt":"2025-08-12T05:29:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/138861\/"},"modified":"2025-08-12T05:29:14","modified_gmt":"2025-08-12T05:29:14","slug":"b-c-to-appeal-court-ruling-that-recognized-aboriginal-title-to-land-south-of-vancouver","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/138861\/","title":{"rendered":"B.C. to appeal court ruling that recognized Aboriginal title to land south of Vancouver"},"content":{"rendered":"

Open this photo in gallery:<\/a><\/p>\n

B.C. Attorney-General Niki Sharma says the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada ruling underscores that the courts are not the proper venue for the province to reconcile past damage done to various First Nations.DARRYL DYCK\/The Canadian Press<\/p>\n

B.C. is appealing the landmark decision of its Supreme Court that granted a group of First Nations<\/a> on Vancouver Island title to riverside land in the mainland suburb of Richmond, saying the judgment raises questions about private-property rights.<\/p>\n

Attorney-General Niki Sharma announced the appeal at a news conference Monday, saying the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada judgment<\/a> must be reconsidered by a higher court because it could have significant, unintended consequences on the province\u2019s system of real estate ownership, known as fee-simple title. <\/p>\n

\u201cWe obviously have a very strong property title regime here in B.C. and what that does is protect the interests of property owners so when they own a title or they own property, that\u2019s protected under our various legislation,\u201d Ms. Sharma told reporters in Vancouver. \u201cWe believe that that needs to be defended in the court.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Barbara Young\u2018s 863-page ruling late last week \u2212 from a trial that stretched from 2019 to 2023 \u2212 rendered the fee-simple ownership and interests<\/a> in the lands, held by Canada, the City of Richmond and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, \u201cdefective and invalid.\u201d<\/p>\n

Opinion: How Indigenous peoples and the private sector can work together to get major projects done<\/a><\/p>\n

If the Cowichan\u2019s win is upheld in future appeals, the Nation could eventually take control of the land in question and use it as they see fit.<\/p>\n

But Justice Young suspended this declaration for 18 months on the existing land titles being declared invalid so the Cowichan, the federal government and the City of Richmond \u201cwill have the opportunity to make the necessary arrangements.\u201d <\/p>\n

The judge said the Cowichan did not seek to invalidate the titles to privately held land, which is owned by a mix of commercial and industrial businesses.<\/p>\n

Instead, the decision called on the province to negotiate in \u201cgood-faith reconciliation\u201d with the Cowichan \u2212 which includes the Cowichan Tribes, Stz\u2019uminus First Nation, Penelakut Tribe, Halalt First Nation and Lyackson First Nation.<\/p>\n

\u201cReconciliation does not mean that Indigenous peoples must always sacrifice their right to their established interest in land. Fee simple interests in this land are not superior to Aboriginal title,\u201d the justice wrote.<\/p>\n

Ms. Sharma said the ruling underscores that the courts are not the proper venue for British Columbia<\/a> to reconcile past damage done to various First Nations. Ms. Sharma said her government is reaching out to the Cowichan to try to come to a resolution.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve had examples of figuring out through agreement how we can resolve underlying disputes and claims while respecting all the rights at play,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Several hours earlier, at a news conference across the Salish Sea on Vancouver Island, Cowichan Tribes Chief Cindy Daniels said the Cowichan attempted to negotiate a treaty years ago with the province but B.C. showed no interest, so they launched the legal challenge.<\/p>\n

Opinion: The desire for nation-building initiatives should not obscure the success of federal investment in Indigenous renewable energy projects<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cAs stated in our 2016 declaration of reconciliation,\u201d she said, \u201cour land and resources objectives are to recover and restore our village and surrounding lands, re-establish our permanent residence and river access, re-establish our cultural practices including those that support food security and sustainability, realize economic development and re-establish the truth of our history in that region.\u201d <\/p>\n

The decision found that the Cowichan had established a permanent \u201cpost and beam village\u201d on the grounds, just east of the portion of the Fraser River where Highway 99 now tunnels underneath. Then, from 1871 to 1914, B.C. began selling off this Cowichan land to settlers.<\/p>\n

The Cowichan claim involved about 1,850 acres and the court declared title on roughly 40 per cent of that.<\/p>\n

It was unknown Monday afternoon whether appeals will also be launched by the other defendants, which included the federal government, the City of Richmond and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority as well two other Indigenous groups: the Musqueam Indian Band and the Tsawwassen First Nation.<\/p>\n

The Musqueam and Tsawwassen have long lived around the Fraser River in B.C.\u2019s Lower Mainland. Musqueam Chief Wayne Sparrow said immediately after the ruling was released Friday that his Nation was \u201cextremely disappointed\u201d that the Cowichan \u201cwould go against our shared Coast Salish protocols.\u201d<\/p>\n

David Robbins, lead lawyer for the Cowichan and one of 86 counsel representing all parties in the case, told reporters Monday that it was up to the provincial government to reconcile the existing private property rights with the ruling.<\/p>\n

\u201cFundamentally, this case is about resetting their relationships with the Crown,\u201d he said of his clients. \u201cAnd so, with respect to the private fee simple that is still encumbering the Cowichan Aboriginal title, they sought a declaration that British Columbia has a duty, to reconcile that fee simple with the Cowichan Nation Aboriginal title through negotiations.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2019, the Cowichan said they have no plans to eject the current property owners<\/a>, but would expect to be compensated by governments for the private properties that lie within their territories.<\/p>\n

Robin Junger, a lawyer focused on Indigenous and environmental law with McMillan LLP, said the ruling is so contentious because it finds that First Nations and private owners could both hold title rights to the same pieces of this land at the same time.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not limited to them, it\u2019s not unique to them,\u201d he said in an interview Monday.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s any fee-simple home in British Columbia would be subject to the same rationale.\u201d<\/p>\n

He said he expects this case will be before the courts for some time.<\/p>\n

\u201cPeople should wait and see what the Court of Appeal and potentially the Supreme Court of Canada says before getting exercised about it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

With a report from The Canadian Press<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Open this photo in gallery: B.C. Attorney-General Niki Sharma says the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada ruling underscores that…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":138862,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[2147,50,4741],"class_list":{"0":"post-138861","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-news","8":"tag-canada","9":"tag-news","10":"tag-pleasemod"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115014150617335679","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138861","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138861"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138861\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/138862"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138861"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138861"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138861"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}