Hundreds attend the Cowichan Ruling information session at the Sheraton Vancouver Airport Hotel in Richmond on October 28, 2025. Photo by Arlen Redekop /PNG
Why weren't we told sooner about the implications of Aboriginal title? The answer should concern everyone
Vaughn Palmer: As far back as eight years ago, the court had wrestled with whether to notify private landowners about the implications of a declaration of Aboriginal title
Author of the article:By Vaughn Palmer
Published Oct 29, 2025
VICTORIA — The question that dominated a Richmond public meeting this week on the impact of a recent court decision on Aboriginal title was a simple one: “Why weren’t we told sooner?”
Residents had learned just this month, courtesy of a letter from Mayor Malcolm Brodie, that the B.C. Supreme Court decision recognizing Aboriginal title over hundreds of acres of city land could have a “negative impact” on private land within the area.
They had heard Premier David Eby say that the mayor’s concerns were warranted and that residents were right to be worried — and not just residents of Richmond. “It is a big deal,” said the premier.
Yet the case dates back 10 years. And as far back as eight years ago, the court had wrestled with whether to notify private landowners about the implications of a declaration of Aboriginal title.
So why were landowners and residents only learning about it now?
The answer — sobering as it is — ought to concern every British Columbian.
Mayor Brodie was taken aback by the response to his letter.
“We were astounded by the lack of knowledge of people in this particular area, not to mention the wider population,” he told Jas Johal on CKNW prior to the meeting Tuesday.
“We had quite a number of calls where the homeowners had no idea that there was any issue, or anything was going on in relation to their property.”
Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie speaks as hundreds attend the Cowichan Ruling information session at the Sheraton Vancouver Airport Hotel in Richmond on October 28, 2025.
Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie speaks as hundreds attend the Cowichan Ruling information session at the Sheraton Vancouver airport Hotel in Richmond on October 28, 2025. Photo by Arlen Redekop /PNG
Yet the mayor maintains that the city did not have the prime responsibility to notify landowners of the implications in advance. He says the onus was on the winning plaintiffs, the Cowichan Tribes.
Tensions flare at Richmond meeting over Cowichan title decision
B.C.'s deputy premier and attorney general Niki Sharma.
Niki Sharma defends handling of Cowichan, Haida Aboriginal title cases
“To me, the responsibility should fall on the Cowichan to make sure that all the landowners are notified,” said Brodie. An application to require just that was made early in the proceedings. The court rejected it.
It was the province that first asked the court, back in 2017, to require notification.
“The province did what it could to make it clear to the court — to say that this was a very important thing, that the private landowners who were intentionally implicated — be included,” attorney general Niki Sharma said Tuesday.
The court rejected the application, saying at that stage that “no remedy” from the court would impact the private landowners.
The province also chose not to give notification on its own because of the legal implications in terms of liability down the road, Sharma said.
Case management judge J.A. Power of the B.C. Supreme Court rejected motions for notification from the provincial and federal governments.
The judge worried that if the court ordered formal notifications to private landowners it could be swamped with applications from them for standing.
“It would for all practical purposes put a halt to these proceedings,” Power ruled. Plus, the Cowichan Tribes “do not seek at this stage to invalidate fee-simple interests held by private landowners.”
Note: “At this stage.” In the event Cowichan were to revise its intentions in future, the private landowners could then proceed to court and file a complaint that “they were not given formal notice” earlier.
The Cowichan Tribes (Quw’utsun Nation) also commented on notification this week.
The nation noted how Power had said that the court’s decision did not prevent any of the defendants — Canada, B.C., Richmond — from providing notice to private landowners if they wished to do so.
“The truth is B.C. and Richmond were free to provide notice that the trial was going ahead and the issues included whether the Quw’utsun Nation had Aboriginal title with respect to the lands held by the private fee-simple landowners. They chose not to.”
True, as far as it goes. But the judge also recorded that the Cowichan Tribes had “vigorously opposed” the application to give formal notice to landowners because the Cowichan were not, at that time, seeking possession of the private fee-simple land.
“They argue that this approach leaves for another day — and only if necessary — the consequences of a declaration of Aboriginal title on private landowners,” wrote Justice Power back in 2017.
Yet as the case unfolded over the years, the Cowichan Tribes sought a declaration of Aboriginal title over the entire claim area in Richmond, private land included. They are now appealing the judge’s decision to grant them title to less than half of their 1,800-acre claim.
As for the impact of Aboriginal title, the nation’s lawyer admitted recently that the court declaration has already affected the buying and selling of private land within the affected area.
A private sale would proceed only “with the consent of the Cowichan Nation and it would be with some accommodation from the Crown to the Cowichan Nation.”
So, to recap, the city, the province, the Indigenous nation, and the court all ducked responsibility for notifying the landowners … and passed the buck to each other.
Each had its own reasons. But the net effect was to keep the landowners and the broader B.C. public in the dark until the court proclaimed Aboriginal title.
Now the only option for B.C. and Richmond is a long court fight to try and undo what was done.
Article content
vpalmer@postmedia.com
Source link:
https://vancouversun.com/news/vaughn-pa ... n-decision
