Tsilhqot'in First Nation granted B.C. title claim in Supreme Court ruling
The unanimous 8-0 decision released Thursday resolves many important legal questions, such as how to determine aboriginal title and whether provincial laws apply to those lands. It will apply wherever there are outstanding land claims.
The decision, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, also has implications for future economic or resource development on First Nations lands.
'It only took 150 years, but we look forward to a much brighter future. This without question will establish a solid platform for genuine reconciliation to take place in British Columbia.'- Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
The case focused on the Tsilhqot'in First Nation's claim to aboriginal title over 440,000 hectares of land to the south and west of Williams Lake in the B.C. Interior.
A B.C. Court of Appeal ruling in 2012 gave the Tsilhqot'in sweeping rights to hunt, trap and trade in its traditional territory. But the Court of Appeal agreed with the federal and provincial governments that the Tsilhqot'in must identify specific sites where its people once lived, rather than assert a claim over a broad area.
The Tsilhqot'in, a collection of six aboriginal bands that include about 3,000 people, argued the court's decision failed to recognize the way its people had lived for centuries.
The court heard the Tsilhqot'in people were "semi-nomadic," with few permanent encampments, even though they saw the area as their own and protected it from outsiders.
Establishes meaning of title
In its decision, Canada's top court agreed that a semi-nomadic tribe can claim land title even if it uses it only some of the time, and set out a three-point test to determine land titles, considering:
• Continuity of habitation on the land.
• Exclusivity in area.
The court also established what title means, including the right to the benefits associated with the land, and the right to use it, enjoy it and profit from it.
However, the court declared that title is not absolute, meaning economic development can still proceed on land where title is established as long as one of two conditions is met:
• Economic development on land where title is established has the consent of the First Nation.
• Failing that, the government must make the case that development is pressing and substantial, and meet its fiduciary duty to the aboriginal group.
In other words, the decision places a greater burden on governments to justify economic development on aboriginal land.
The court also makes it clear that provincial law still applies to land over which aboriginal title has been declared, subject to constitutional limits.
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, was with Chief Roger William, who brought the case, and other Tsilhqot'in chiefs when they learned of the top court's decision, and said the mood in the room was "absolutely electrifying."
"We all heard the decision at the same moment, and the room just erupted in cheers and tears. Everybody is absolutely jubilant. It's very emotional," Phillip told CBC News.
"It only took 150 years, but we look forward to a much brighter future. This without question will establish a solid platform for genuine reconciliation to take place in British Columbia.
"I didn't think it would be so definitive," Phillip added. "I was actually prepared for something much less. It's not very often that I'm without words, and I'm quite overwhelmed at the moment."
From the Case
" For centuries the Tsilhqot’in Nation, a semi-nomadic grouping of six bands sharing common culture and history, have lived in a remote valley bounded by rivers and mountains in central British Columbia. It is one of hundreds of indigenous groups in B.C. with unresolved land claims. In 1983, B.C. granted a commercial logging licence on land considered by the Tsilhqot’in to be part of their traditional territory. The band objected and sought a declaration prohibiting commercial logging on the land. Talks with the province reached an impasse and the original land claim was amended to include a claim for Aboriginal title to the land at issue on behalf of all Tsilhqot’inpeople. The federal and provincial governments opposed the title claim.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia held that occupation was established for the purpose of proving title by showing regular and exclusive use of sites or territory within the claim area, as well as to a small area outside that area. Applying a narrower test based on site-specific occupation requiring proof that the Aboriginal group’s ancestors intensively used a definite tract of land with reasonably defined boundaries at the time of European sovereignty, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the Tsilhqot’in claim to title had not been established. "
The S.C.C. (unanimously) allowed the appeal and a declaration of Aboriginal title over the area requested should be granted. A declaration that British Columbia breached its duty to consult owed to the Tsilhqot’in Nation should also be granted.
Chief Justice McLachlin wrote as follows (at paras. 2, 151-153):
" ... • Aboriginal title flows from occupation in the sense of regular and exclusive use of land. • In this case, Aboriginal title is established over the area designated by the trial judge. • Aboriginal title confers the right to use and control the land and to reap the benefits flowing from it. • Where title is asserted, but has not yet been established, s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 requires the Crown to consult with the group asserting title and, if appropriate, accommodate its interests. • Once Aboriginal title is established, s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 permits incursions on it only with the consent of the Aboriginal group or if they are justified by a compelling and substantial public purpose and are not inconsistent with the Crown’s fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal group; for purposes of determining the validity of provincial legislative incursions on lands held under Aboriginal title, this framework displaces the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. • In this case, the Province’s land use planning and forestry authorizations were inconsistent with its duties owed to the Tsilhqot’in people.
...the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity should not be applied in cases where lands are held under Aboriginal title. Rather, the s. 35 Sparrow approach should govern. Provincial laws of general application, including the Forest Act, should apply unless they are unreasonable, impose a hardship or deny the title holders their preferred means of exercising their rights, and such restrictions cannot be justified pursuant to the justification framework outlined above. The result is a balance that preserves the Aboriginal right while permitting effective regulation of forests by the province, as required by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 .
The s. 35 framework applies to exercises of both provincial and federal power: Sparrow;Delgamuukw. As such, it provides a complete and rational way of confining provincial legislation affecting Aboriginal title land within appropriate constitutional bounds. The issue in cases such as this is not at base one of conflict between the federal and provincial levels of government — an issue appropriately dealt with by the doctrines of paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity where precedent supports this — but rather how far the provincial government can go in regulating land that is subject to Aboriginal title or claims for Aboriginal title. The appropriate constitutional lens through which to view the matter is s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 , which directly addresses the requirement that these interests must be respected by the government, unless the government can justify incursion on them for a compelling purpose and in conformity with its fiduciary duty to affected Aboriginal groups.
I would allow the appeal and grant a declaration of Aboriginal title over the area at issue, as requested by the Tsilhqot’in. I further declare that British Columbia breached its duty to consult owed to the Tsilhqot’in through its land use planning and forestry authorizations."
Note: This summary is drawn from a CBC News article and Eugene Meehan’s SupremeAdvocacy Weekly Updates for the Law Community.