After 513 days of testimony, Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General) has become one of the longest trials in Canadian history, and one of the most consequential for how we think about land ownership. In a sweeping decision, the British Columbia Supreme Court recognized Aboriginal title over parts of the City of Richmond, including areas that today are held in fee simple by private owners.Much of the public response has been framed around fear with headlines imagining homeowners evicted from lands they purchased lawfully and possess openly. But the real significance of this case runs deeper and deserves a more careful understanding.The Cowichan Peoples comprising several First Nations claimed approximately 1,846 acres on Lulu Island, including the Tl’uqtinus village site along the Fraser River. The land today includes parcels owned by the federal Crown, The Province of British Columbia, The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, The City of Richmond and third private parties (private homeowners).Along with Aboriginal title to the claim area, the Cowichan Peoples also claim an Aboriginal right to fish on the south end of the Fraser River for food.To establish Aboriginal title, the court applied the now-established test requiring sufficient occupation at the time of European sovereignty; continuity of occupation (where present occupation is relied upon), and exclusive historic occupation.After examining generations of oral history, ethnographic research, archival evidence, and expert testimony, the court concluded that the Cowichan Peoples met those criteria. Their permanent village lands were unlawfully sold to settlers beginning in 1859, despite the Crown having already set them aside for future reserve creation.As the court bluntly put it: this was an unjustified infringement of Aboriginal title. So, who owns what now?&nbsp;This is where public concern has erupted, and we need to take a closer look at this landmark ruling.&nbsp;The Cowichan did not challenge private ownership. They did not seek remedies against private homeowners. They asked only that Crown, municipal, and port authority titles be declared invalid.The court emphasized repeatedly that private landowners were not parties to the action, were in possession of fee simple interests, nor&nbsp;subject to any declaration affecting their titles. So, no, there is no mass eviction coming to Richmond.&nbsp;But here’s the uncomfortable truth. All private land in Canada, whether a condo in Toronto or a farm in Saskatchewan, originates with some form of Crown patent or municipal vesting.Even though this case leaves private homeowners untouched for now, it does something unprecedented: it recognizes that Aboriginal title persists even where the Crown granted private fee simple title. That forces a profound legal realization that if provincial Crown grants cannot extinguish Aboriginal title, then any private title ultimately rooted in those grants sits on contested legal ground.If those governmental transfers are later found to have been unlawful, invalid or even procedurally incomplete, then private ownership could become negotiable in future claims, even if today’s plaintiffs did not pursue that remedy today.This is why developers, municipalities, banks, and title insurers are paying close attention. Property valuation may evolve where unresolved claims exist, lending and insurance risk profiles may change, land-use planning could require Indigenous approvals, and shared jurisdiction may become the new baseline for private land ownership in Canada.&nbsp;Today, coexistence. Tomorrow, co-governance? Eventually, perhaps conditional ownership?This case doesn’t answer those questions, but it creates the conditions in which they must be asked.Despite the legal implications, the ruling’s central message is one of affirmation: Indigenous communities were living, governing, and sustaining themselves on these lands long before 1846. Their territorial rights were not erased simply because someone else recorded a deed later on. Aboriginal title cannot be extinguished except by a negotiated agreement, or a clear and lawful federal action. British Columbia’s historic land practices, infamously lacking treaties, offer neither.Cowichan v. Canada is not a conclusion; it is a pivot point. It establishes that Private and Aboriginal land interests can coexist,&nbsp;Provincial Crown grants do not erase Aboriginal title and historical injustice has current and enforceable legal consequences.The case now moves into remedies and governance questions, where coexistence must become operational reality rather than judicial language.This ruling does not dismantle private homeownership, but it does subtly redefine it. Beneath every parcel of land in Canada lies a deeper story, and a competing sovereignty, that the courts are no longer willing to ignore.In doing so, the Cowichan decision shifts private property away from a notion of absolute dominion toward a model rooted in history, continuity, and shared stewardship.The legal ground didn’t move.&nbsp; We simply discovered that it was never as solid as we assumed.

A Landmark Ruling That Quietly Redefines Canada’s Ownership Map: Cowichan v. Canada

BC court upholds Aboriginal title in Richmond, redefining private land certainty and future property rights across Canada. Learn more with RIFO about the ramifications of this ruling.

About RIFO

Business

Investors

News

Contact Us

Contact Us