Publications

SCC Sets Test for – and Defines Rights of – Aboriginal Title in Canada in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. B.C.

Published:

June 26, 2014

On June 26, 2014, in a groundbreaking decision on Aboriginal title, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) significantly elaborated on the legal test for Aboriginal title in Canada – and decided that where there is Aboriginal title to land, the government must seek the consent of the title-holding Aboriginal group to proceed with developments on that land.

In 1983, the BC Government issued logging licences under the BC Forest Act to a private company. The Tsilhqoti’in Nation asserted an Aboriginal title claim to land covered by those licences. The SCC decided the Aboriginal title claim was valid – and 30 years later, the licences were not. In the course of its decision, the SCC significantly developed the law of Aboriginal title in Canada:

Test. The test for Aboriginal title is based on sufficient, continuous and exclusive occupation by a First Nation prior to European sovereignty and does not bar nomadic and semi-nomadic people from proving an Aboriginal title claim. A court should emphasize integration of Canadian common law and Aboriginal perspectives in applying this test.
Territorial Scope. The SCC confirmed that Aboriginal title is not necessarily confined to specific settlement sites, but may extend to tracts of land that Aboriginal peoples regularly used prior to European sovereignty.
Duty to Consult. The SCC also confirmed that where Aboriginal title is asserted, but not yet confirmed by court declaration or by agreement, the Crown still owes the duty to consult with the First Nations.
Control of Land. The SCC decided that once a First Nation has established Aboriginal title, the title holders have “the right to determine, subject to the inherent limit of group title held for future generations, the uses to which land is put and to enjoy its economic fruits” – in effect that the government must seek consent of the title-holding Aboriginal group to proceed with developments on that land. Governments must also ensure that they apply or update any legislation, regulations and policies that may affect that land so they don’t unjustifiably infringe the Aboriginal title.
Application. These principles apply equally to Federal and Provincial government actions and lands.

The SCC’s decision will likely have significant impact on:

First Nations. First Nations communities and Aboriginal rights holders now have a better idea of what they must prove to establish Aboriginal title in land – and what rights they get if they do establish it.
Government. Provincial and Federal governments have a clearer picture of how to assess an asserted Aboriginal title claim, how to respond to it – and how to deal with a proven one.
Industry. Resource rights holders should reassess their rights (such as licences, approvals, permits, government leases and agreements) by considering whether they could infringe on any Aboriginal rights, including Aboriginal title – and whether they are valid today as they were yesterday.

Read the SCC’s decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. B.C., 2014 SCC 44.

For more on the impact of this decision, read McInnes Cooper’s The Changing Face of Aboriginal Law – 1 Short Year, 2 Big Court Decisions, 3 Key Implications for the Energy & Natural Resources Sector.

Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our McInnes Cooper Aboriginal Law Team to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.

McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.

© McInnes Cooper, 2014. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. E-mail us at [email protected] to request our consent.

Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

SCC Sets Test for – and Defines Rights of – Aboriginal Title in Canada in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. B.C.

Published:

Share

Share

Related Services

Related Industries

Related Publications

Webinar | Growing Out Atlantic Canada’s Aquaculture Industry

Hiring a Foreign Company to Provide Services in Canada? 3 Immigration Issues

The Duty to Consult Indigenous Groups: 5 FAQs

Dutch Court Orders Corporation to Reduce Emissions in Landmark Decision

R. v. Desautel: Canadian Constitution Protects Non-Citizen Aboriginal People

The N.S. Shared Solar Energy Program: 3 Key Facts

The Indigenous Right to a Moderate Livelihood: A Need for Clarity

Coping with COVID-19: The Impact on Contractual Performance in the Energy and Natural Resources Sector

N.S. Battens Down Marine Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)

5 Key Requirements of Canada’s Federal Environmental Emergency Regulations

A Whale of a Change: 5 of the Key Changes DFO Proposes to Canada’s Fisheries Act

Dan Watt in Energy Regulation Quarterly | The Impact Assessment Act, Canadian Energy Regulator Act and Offshore Energy: A View from Atlantic Canada

The Evolving Duty to Consult Indigenous Peoples: N.S. Court Recognizes a “Duty of Enforcement Consultation” in R. v. Martin

The Feds Finally Take the Plunge: Bill C-69 & The New Federal Offshore Renewable Energy Regime

Bill C-69 & the New Federal Impact Assessment Act: The Impact on the Role of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB)

Navigating the N.S. Marine Renewable Energy Regime: What Project Developers Need to Know

Williams Lake Indian Band v. Canada: Crown Breached Fiduciary Duty to Indigenous Community – in 1858

Balance Between Public & Operator Interests in Offshore Petroleum Resources Data is Set: Supreme Court of Canada Won’t Hear Appeal in Geophysical Service Incorporated (GSI) v. Encana Corporation

It’s Official: “Facilitation Payments” to Foreign Public Officials Violates Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA)

New Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Oil Royalty Regulations Effective November 1, 2017: Key Changes to the Offshore Regime

Supreme Court of Canada Tackles Freedom of Religion & the Duty to Consult in Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)

Canada Has Other Fish to Fry Between NAFTA Negotiation Rounds: CETA Provisionally Effective September 21, 2017

New N.S. Demonstration Permit for Marine Renewable Energy in the Wind (and the Waves) With Proposed Marine Renewable Energy Act Amendments

Charting a Course for Good Governance of Canada’s Emerging Ocean Economy | Offshore Aquaculture and Ocean-based Renewable Energy

Cross-Border Caution: 5 Anti-Corruption Law Compliance Program Tips

Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo Services Inc. and Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc.: Crown Can Rely on National Energy Board to Fulfill its Duty to Consult

Making Waves: What CETA means for Atlantic Canadian Fisheries

Canada v. Mikisew Cree First Nation: Court to Decide Whether Duty to Consult Also Applies Before Legislation is Enacted

Northern Exposure: Anti-Corruption Law Exposes Payments to Governments Under Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act (ESTMA)

Appeal Court maintains balance between public & operator interests in offshore petroleum resources data in Geophysical Service Incorporated (GSI) v. Encana Corporation

Cannabis Legalization in Canada: Seeds have sprouted, but the branches are still bare

Nip it in the Bud: A 5 Step Plan for Employers to Prepare for Cannabis Legalization in Canada

Daniel Watt and Sara Mahaney in Gard Update: Legal privilege in the corporate context in Canada

Register Before You Lobby in N.B. under Lobbyists’ Registration Act

McInnes Cooper in the Maritimes Energy Association’s Member News | Go Deep: How International Legal Reform Can Prevent Legal Uncertainty from Hindering Offshore Wind & Aquaculture Growth

Go Deep: How International Legal Reform Can Prevent Legal Uncertainty from Hindering Offshore Wind & Aquaculture Growth

Available now: Offshore Oil and Gas Decommissioning Best Practices

Confidentiality Risks of Doing Business With the Public Sector Just Got Riskier: Completed NS Access to Information Requests Go Online

The Atlantic Link: 5 Key Questions About the Electrifying Opportunity to Connect to a New Renewable Energy Market

The Top Three Atlantic Canada Offshore Legal Developments of 2016

Time to Shine: Nova Scotia to Launch Solar Energy Pilot Program in 2017

Keeping It Flowing: 10 Steps to Anticipate Citizens’ Challenges to New Developments

Public & operator interests in offshore petroleum resources data: Where will the balance be struck? in Geophysical Service Incorporated (GSI) v. Encana Corporation

Supreme Court of Canada Decides Indian Bands Assessing Leased Reserve Lands for Property Tax Purposes Can’t Have it Both Ways in Musqueam Indian Band v. Musqueam Indian Band (Board of Review)

DFO Decides “Last In, First Out” Policy (LIFO) is Out

Weigh Now or Weight Later: New Cargo Container Verified Gross Mass (VGM) Rules Effective July 1, 2016

The Parameters of Municipal Power: Supreme Court of Canada Decides Municipality Can’t Block Radiocommunication Tower Construction in Rogers Communications Inc. v. Châteauguay (City)

FAQs About AMPs (Administrative Monetary Penalties) in the Canadian Offshore

Assertion of Aboriginal Right Does Not Automatically Confer Eligibility to Appeal a Regulatory Approval in O’Chiese First Nation v. Alberta Energy Regulator

The East Coast Duty to Consult Indigenous Peoples

The Legal Defence of Due Diligence: Top 5 FAQs

The New Nova Scotia Mineral Resources Act: The Good, The Risky & The Neutral

Supreme Court of Canada Decides Federal Government Has Legislative Authority Over Métis & Non-Status Indians

Doing Business With the Public Sector: Key Confidentiality Risks & 3 Risk Management Strategies

Construction Project Manager Sentenced to 3½ Years for Workplace Accident in R. v. Vadim Kazenelson (aka “Metron”)

Energy Safety and Security Act (ESSA) Effective February 26, 2016: 7 Key Changes Toughen Up Atlantic Offshore and North Oil & Gas Regulatory Regime

NB Kicks-off First Request for Expressions of Interest from Aboriginal Businesses Under New Electricity from Renewable Resources Regulation

Offshore Oil and Gas Decommissioning Best Practices

University of Calgary, The School of Public Policy Research Paper – Canada, The Law of the Sea Treaty and International Payments: Where Will the Money Come From?

The Changing Face of Aboriginal Law: 1 Short Year, 2 Big Court Decisions, 3 Key Implications for the Energy & Natural Resources Sector

Unproven Aboriginal Rights Enough For Lawsuit Against Private Industry in Saik’uz First Nation and Stellat’en First Nation v. Rio Tinto Alcan Inc.

3 Reasons for Directors, Officers and Supervisors To Take Occupational Health and Safety Personally

5 “Legal” Reasons Why Natural Resource Companies Should Care About Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

NS Workers’ Compensation Board Issues New Policy for Psychological Injury Claims

Legal Update: The Duty to Consult – Important Lessons from Canada’s Mining Sector

A Review of the Project Scope and Environmental Assessment Scope for Mining and Energy Projects Across Canada

Stay Updated