Supreme Court expands land title rights in unanimous ruling
The Supreme Court of Canada has given aboriginal groups a major victory, expanding their rights to claim possession of ancestral lands and control those lands permanently.
“The right to control the land conferred by Aboriginal title means that governments and others seeking to use the land must obtain the consent of the Aboriginal title holders,” the court said in an 8-0 ruling written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. “If the Aboriginal group does not consent to the use, the government’s only recourse is to establish that the proposed incursion on the land is justified” under the Constitution.
The landmark ruling came after what the Tsilhqot’in Nation described as a 150-year fight to assert possession of 4,000 square kilometres of land west of Williams Lake, B.C. The court battle lasted more than 20 years, beginning as a dispute between the small aboriginal group of 3,000 people, and a logging company that had approval from the B.C. government to cut trees on lands claimed by the Tsilhqot’in.
At the heart of the case is the concept of aboriginal title – how to prove it and how much control it would give a native group that has it. In 1997, the Supreme Court said title means a right to possession of land that goes beyond the right to hunt and fish on it. But its actual existence on a particular site had not been recognized by a court decision. (It has, however, been acknowledged by historical treaties and modern land claims agreements.)
The case is important for relations between aboriginal groups, business and the provinces. A coalition of B.C. business groups intervened in the case, telling the Supreme Court that a wide definition of title would threaten the economy. The provinces’ right to approve projects to develop natural resources on some aboriginal lands was in question. And aboriginal groups argued that the case was critical to reconciliation between aboriginal law and the common-law traditions of Canada, and between aboriginal peoples and Canada.
Although the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat, B.C., was not directly at issue, a broad definition of title could give aboriginal groups greater leverage as they try to stop the pipeline from being built through their title lands.
The B.C. Court of Appeal had given a narrow definition of aboriginal title, saying it referred to “intensive presence at a particular site,” such as salt licks and rocks used for fishing. “There is a need to search out a practical compromise that can protect aboriginal traditions without unnecessarily interfering with Crown sovereignty and with the well being of all Canadians,” the appeal court said. The B.C. government and the federal government, which made their cases separately to the court, agreed that title refers to specific sites. The Tsilhqot’in said the appeal court’s narrow definition made a mockery of aboriginal title.
“This is a blueprint for conflict and discord, not reconciliation,” the aboriginal group said in a document filed with the Supreme Court."
Supreme Court expands land title rights in unanimous ruling - The Globe and Mail
The Supreme Court of Canada has given aboriginal groups a major victory, expanding their rights to claim possession of ancestral lands and control those lands permanently.
“The right to control the land conferred by Aboriginal title means that governments and others seeking to use the land must obtain the consent of the Aboriginal title holders,” the court said in an 8-0 ruling written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. “If the Aboriginal group does not consent to the use, the government’s only recourse is to establish that the proposed incursion on the land is justified” under the Constitution.
The landmark ruling came after what the Tsilhqot’in Nation described as a 150-year fight to assert possession of 4,000 square kilometres of land west of Williams Lake, B.C. The court battle lasted more than 20 years, beginning as a dispute between the small aboriginal group of 3,000 people, and a logging company that had approval from the B.C. government to cut trees on lands claimed by the Tsilhqot’in.
At the heart of the case is the concept of aboriginal title – how to prove it and how much control it would give a native group that has it. In 1997, the Supreme Court said title means a right to possession of land that goes beyond the right to hunt and fish on it. But its actual existence on a particular site had not been recognized by a court decision. (It has, however, been acknowledged by historical treaties and modern land claims agreements.)
The case is important for relations between aboriginal groups, business and the provinces. A coalition of B.C. business groups intervened in the case, telling the Supreme Court that a wide definition of title would threaten the economy. The provinces’ right to approve projects to develop natural resources on some aboriginal lands was in question. And aboriginal groups argued that the case was critical to reconciliation between aboriginal law and the common-law traditions of Canada, and between aboriginal peoples and Canada.
Although the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat, B.C., was not directly at issue, a broad definition of title could give aboriginal groups greater leverage as they try to stop the pipeline from being built through their title lands.
The B.C. Court of Appeal had given a narrow definition of aboriginal title, saying it referred to “intensive presence at a particular site,” such as salt licks and rocks used for fishing. “There is a need to search out a practical compromise that can protect aboriginal traditions without unnecessarily interfering with Crown sovereignty and with the well being of all Canadians,” the appeal court said. The B.C. government and the federal government, which made their cases separately to the court, agreed that title refers to specific sites. The Tsilhqot’in said the appeal court’s narrow definition made a mockery of aboriginal title.
“This is a blueprint for conflict and discord, not reconciliation,” the aboriginal group said in a document filed with the Supreme Court."
Supreme Court expands land title rights in unanimous ruling - The Globe and Mail