The Noise is just that. Noise. The Appeal of the Richmond BC Land Claim Award continues to be Uninformed and Misguided.

As discussed in an earlier Anokiigamig Article members of the Quw’utsun Nation won a landmark case in B.C. Supreme Court to recover land title and fisheries rights near the mouth of the Fraser River, in Richmond BC. After 513 days at trial and more than 20 months since closing arguments, the court issued judgment that the Quw’utsun Nation, consisting of Cowichan Tribes, Stz’uminus First Nation, Penelakut Tribe, and Halalt First Nation, as well as the supporting Lyackson First Nation, have Aboriginal title over the Tl’uqtinus village lands, which is located on the south shore of Lulu Island that is now in the City of Richmond.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the province owes a duty to the Quw’utsun Nation to negotiate in good faith reconciliation of the Crown-granted fee simple interests held by third parties in regard to the village lands. The potential impact on private property rights is not insignificant but notably the Quw’utsun Nation had not yet pursued any land claim on third parties with respect to the private property in the disputed area. Nor have they indicated any intent to do so. Nevertheless, the B.C. Supreme Court essentially found that the successful claim of Aboriginal title supersedes any fee simple rights a third party may have. They also asserted that the Honour of the Crown demands that the government make good faith efforts to reconcile any dispute arising out of the ruling.

The province of B.C. and the City of Richmond have now announced that they are appealing the BC Supreme Court ruling. Moreover, the decision has created political backlash and has prompted some uninformed and decidedly biased opinion leaders, like the leader of the opposition Progressive Conservatives in B.C., to engage in what can only be described as fear mongering.

The Tŝilhqot’in National Government (TNG), which was the first in Canada to win a court declaration of Aboriginal title in 20141, has called on governments to set the facts straight around Aboriginal title. First Nations groups that have had the courts recognize Aboriginal title over traditional lands have established frameworks to facilitate the transition process, so that recreation sites, provincial parks and campgrounds within Title Areas could remain open, and tenure holders could continue to own, sell and mortgage their own private properties. Assumptions that declarations of Aboriginal title are a threat to private property are based on misinformation or may be motivated by political agendas.

In an October 27, 2025 press release regarding misinformation around their own title case, the Quw’utsun Nation asserted:

“To be clear, the Quw’utsun Nation’s court case regarding their settlement lands at Tl’uqtinus in Richmond has not and does not challenge the effectiveness or validity of any title held by individual private landowners. The ruling does not erase private property.”

Regardless, B.C.’s Attorney General has filed a stay and appealed the Supreme Court of B.C.’s decision regarding the Quw’utsun Nation’s title case, alleging the title win raises concerns for property owners.

B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad has gone a step further and sent a letter to Premier David Eby on October 19^th urging him to pause all negotiations with First Nations until the appeals process is complete. He wants the province to hasten that process by asking the Supreme Court of Canada to issue a reference decision. “Our whole foundation of our society, foundation of our economy, is based on private property and the ability to be able to invest, to be able to grow assets as a family,” Rustad said. The Premier has rejected Rustad’s position noting that pausing all negotiations with First Nations in B.C. would have significant adverse consequences on resource development.

B.C. has a duty to negotiate with the Cowichan to reconcile their Aboriginal title with the private fee simple interests in a manner that accords with the honour of the Crown. This does not inevitably lead to private property owners being forced from their land. Meanwhile some interests like the City of Richmond continue to promote fear amongst property owners and have suggested to property owners within the City that the contemplated negotiations “could negatively affect the title to your property”.

First Nation leaders in B.C. have correctly argued that most of the province is unceded land, vis-a-vis the Royal Proclamation of 1763,” which effectively means that it remains “Indian Land” to which Aboriginal Title attaches. Given the development of the province since Confederation it has become necessary to reconcile land interests through the process of reconciliation and the preferred path of negotiations. Rustad’s call to cease all negotiations between governments and First Nations and British Columbia is predicated on the hope that the justices would decide that private property rights overrule Aboriginal title. He also wants a constitutional change to guide future decisions. His position can only be interpreted as one in which he wants to dismiss fundamental Aboriginal rights because they are inconvenient and difficult.

We have made this point before but evidently it needs to be repeated (perhaps many times). In the decision in Wolastoqey Nations vs New Brunswick and Canada, et. al., 2024 the Supreme Court of Canada found: “An Aboriginal title declaration establishes the legal relationship, interests, and state of affairs as between the Crown and the Aboriginal group, not as between an Aboriginal group and private parties”. “Once Aboriginal title and any associated Crown wrongdoing is proven, a reconciliation process is triggered…It is during this negotiation and reconciliation phase that the Crown – as a constitutional partner – must attempt to reconcile the existence of Aboriginal title and fee simple interests.” Rustad et al seem to not fully comprehend this.

One only has to look at a recent agreement also made in B.C. to see what the likely outcomes of negotiations might be. In the Haida Title Lands Agreement between the Haida Nation and the province of B.C. in April of 2024 specifically deals with the subject of Fee Simple Interests as follows:

• The Haida Nation consents to and will honour Fee Simple Interests, including those held by Haida citizens.

• The Haida Nation consents to Fee Simple Interests on Haida Gwaii continuing under British Columbia Jurisdiction.

• For greater certainty, this agreement and the recognition of Haida Aboriginal Title do not alter or derogate from those Fee Simple Interests or any rights associated with them.

By way of further clarification, the Haida Title Lands Agreement specifies:

• The Federal and Provincial governments agree that land in the Haida Gwaii is all subject to Aboriginal Title.

• The Haida Nation then agree that all Fee Simple Interests (privately held land in the Haida Gwaii) will continue unchanged in any way.

• Arguably this results in Aboriginal Title being extinguished for those privately-owned lands. So, practically, the agreement suspends Aboriginal Title and allows the Fee Simple Interests to continue unfettered.

· The governments agree that if the land is put up for sale by the private owners the Haida can buy the land and then Aboriginal Title is restored. Land returned to the crown as an escheat (land reverting to the Crown because the owner died without heirs) would also be given back to the Haida and then subject to Aboriginal Title. Private property in the Haida Gwaii can also be gifted to the Haida nation and then subject to Aboriginal Title.

Granted negotiations between different parties likely will result in different outcomes but it is fair to assume that in the Quw’utsun Nation’s case a similar arrangement will be made. Instead of involving the courts or interfering with the process of reconciliation through the inevitable delays caused by litigation it makes more sense for private interests to be lobbying the governments to adopt a position to protect their interests in the same way private interests have been protected in the Haida case.

Once again, we assert that the courts (despite the overwhelming number of cases won by Indigenous groups) have been a necessary step in establishing Indigenous Rights, and they are not the place to reconcile and settle these matters.

[1]

[2] In 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada recognized The Tŝilhqot’in National Government’s rights to control and decide how to use 1,900 square kilometres of land within Xeni Gwet’in territory, one of six communities governed by TNG.