B.C. First Nation hopes for reconciliation as contentious land claim heads to appeal

Canadians should learn more about the history of the land they live on, says Cindy Daniels, chief of Cowichan Tribes, as its legal counsel prepares to defend a contentious land claim involving private property, not far outside Metro Vancouver. 

It’s the best way for the public, she says, to understand why the larger Cowichan Nation continues to pursue about 7.4 square kilometres of land, near the south arm of the Fraser River in Richmond, B.C., after a court awarded it a smaller portion in August. 

“We fought to get back what was ours,” Daniels told CBC News. “We just proved what we knew.”

The unprecedented ruling declared that about 3.25 square kilometres of mixed residential, agricultural and industrial land was Aboriginal title — despite also being privately owned.

The two titles can "coexist," Justice Barbara Young said.

It was a partial victory for the First Nation, and a loss for the defendants, which included the federal, provincial and municipal governments, who say the ruling could upend the security of B.C.’s land title system and present unintended consequences for private property rights.

It's "untested waters," said Thomas Isaac, a lawyer in Aboriginal law, who is not part of the proceedings.

The ruling has stirred intense debate on issues like the B.C.'s legal commitments to First Nations, and is headed for appeal.

The affected area includes more than 100 private owners. Some didn't hear about the case until it was well underway, or even later.

Homeowner Bal Batth learned about it in a letter from the city, which said his house, which has been in his family for more than 50 years, was partially inside the Aboriginal title area.

He says his next thought was, “is this real?” 

There is disagreement over what the judgment means.

The land titles, or documents of ownership, held by those people inside the claim area are known as fee simple titles. They're the most common form of land ownership in Canada and are supposed to be indefeasible or basically guaranteed, says Isaac. But, he says, the ruling upends that basic principle.

“That was the court's words in numerous places in the decision, that indefeasible title is no longer indefeasible when it comes to Aboriginal title being proven," he said.