Question Period Note: Litigation - BC Supreme Court Decision in Cowichan

N.A.

• Canada disagrees with certain elements of Court’s decision, and we appealed 4 of 6 findings on September 8th.
• Canada defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown at trial, and we will continue to do so on appeal.
• This decision’s potential significant implications, including on private property rights, necessitates greater legal clarity, and our government is committed to attaining that clarity through the proper legal process.

In November 2014, the Cowichan Tribes, the Stz’uminus First Nation, the Penelakut Tribe, and the Halalt First Nation commenced an action in the BC Supreme Court against Canada, British Columbia, and the City of Richmond. The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Musqueam Indian Band and Tsawwassen First Nation were added as defendants in 2016.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of Aboriginal title to 1,846 acres of land located on the waterfront in the City of Richmond, and a declaration of an Aboriginal right to fish for food in the south arm of the Fraser River. The claimed lands include approximately 700 acres of federal lands managed by Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. The remaining lands are municipal (Richmond) or are held by private landowners.
The BC Supreme Court trial lasted from September 2019 to November 2023.
On August 7, 2025, the Court issued its decision, declaring the Plaintiffs have titleto approximately 40 percent of the claimed area and an Aboriginal right to fish. The Court also declared Canada’s fee simple interests in the Aboriginal title lands (other than the fuel delivery lands) to be defective and invalid, that Canada’s has a duty to negotiate Canada’s fee simple interest in the fuel delivery lands with the Plaintiffs’ Aboriginal title, and that the Crown grants of fee simple interests in the Aboriginal title lands unjustifiably infringe the Plaintiffs’ title. The deadline for parties to appeal the BC Supreme Court decision to the BC Court of Appeal was September 8, 2025. Canada filed its Notice of Appeal on September 8, and is appealing portions of the decision around aboriginal title and invalidity of Canada’s fee simple interests to achieve clarity and certainty on the issues raised by the decision, which are of national importance. The other parties have also appealed parts of the decision. This includes the Cowichan, who have appealed the overall declaration of title – on appeal, Cowichan is seeking title to all of the claimed area or in the alternative, a larger portion of the claim area than that to which title was declared.

If pressed on Canada’s appeal
• The Government of Canada has decided to appeal the ruling, as further legal clarity is needed on the complex land title issues involved in this case, given the potential for significant nation-wide implications of the ruling.
• This decision to appeal does not diminish our commitment to upholding our legal obligations to Indigenous Peoples.
• As this matter is before the Courts, we are not in a position to comment further on the proceedings at this time. If pressed on other parties’ appeals
• The Government of Canada respects the right of all parties to pursue their own legal strategies. While our grounds for appeal focus on specific legal questions, we remain committed to reconciliation and to working constructively with all parties throughout this process.
• As this matter is before the Courts, we are not in a position to comment further on the proceedings at this time. If pressed on concerns of private landholders
• We understand that this decision may cause uncertainty and concern for private landowners.
• The Government of Canada is committed to maintaining legal clarity and stability in land ownership while respecting Aboriginal rights and title, and the Court process. If pressed on why private landowners were not notified at trial
• Canada brought an application in 2017 seeking an Order requiring the Plaintiffs to notify the private landowners in this case.
• At that time, the Court declined to exercise discretion to require the Plaintiffs to give formal notice to the private landowners.
• The Court found that the private landowners would have the opportunity to make all arguments, including that they were not given notice, in any subsequent proceeding against them if any such proceedings are brought.