Tsilhqotʼin Nation v British Columbia[1] is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that established Aboriginal land title for the Tsilhqotʼin First Nation, with larger effects. As a result of the landmark decision, provinces cannot unilaterally claim a right to engage in clearcut logging on lands protected by Aboriginal title; they must engage in meaningful consultation with the title holder before they proceed. Although the Aboriginal title holder does not have to consent to the activity, meaningful consultation is required before infringement of the right can take place.[2]
In 1983, the province of British Columbia issued a licence to Carrier Lumber to cut trees in lands that included remote central British Columbia territory which was claimed by the Xeni Gwetʼin band of the Tsilhqotʼin. The Tsilhqotʼin are a semi-nomadic group of First Nations people who had lived in the area for centuries, managing these lands and repelling invaders. The Xeni Gwetʼin blockaded the area, preventing Carrier from logging. The company conducted unsuccessful negotiations with the provincial government to continue logging.[3] The Xeni Gwetʼin filed suit seeking a court declaration that would prohibit Carrier Lumber's commercial logging operations in this area, and establish their claim for Aboriginal title to the land, which was part of their historical territory.
Lower courts
At trial, which lasted five years, both the federal and provincial governments opposed the title claim. The trial judge applied a test for Aboriginal title that examined whether the Xeni Gwet'in regularly and exclusively used the sites or territory within the claim area. The trial judge rejected the title claim for procedural reasons.
In 2012, the decision was appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, where the court upheld the decision that the Tsilhqotʼin did not hold title to these lands, except for limited situations.[4] The court applied a more stringent title test that examined site-specific occupation of definite tracts of land at the time of European sovereignty.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, led by Beverly McLachlin, unanimously allowed the appeal. They ruled that the Tsilhqotʼin did have a claim of Aboriginal title to the 1,750 square kilometres (680 sq mi) they had historically occupied.
Aboriginal title
The court held that Aboriginal title constitutes a beneficial interest in the land, the underlying control of which is retained by the Crown.[5] Rights conferred by Aboriginal title include the right to decide how the land will be used; to enjoy, occupy and possess the land; and to proactively use and manage the land, including its natural resources.[6] But, the court set out a Sparrow-style mechanism by which the Crown can override Aboriginal title in the public interest:
the Crown must have carried out consultation and accommodation;
the Crown's actions must have been supported by a compelling and substantial objective; and
the Crown's action must have been consistent with its fiduciary obligation to the Aboriginal body in question.[7]
Tsilhqotʼin Nation v. British Columbia at the Supreme Court of Canada
January 31, 2023
tsilhqotʼin, nation, british, columbia, landmark, decision, supreme, court, canada, that, established, aboriginal, land, title, tsilhqotʼin, first, nation, with, larger, effects, result, landmark, decision, provinces, cannot, unilaterally, claim, right, engage. Tsilhqotʼin Nation v British Columbia 1 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that established Aboriginal land title for the Tsilhqotʼin First Nation with larger effects As a result of the landmark decision provinces cannot unilaterally claim a right to engage in clearcut logging on lands protected by Aboriginal title they must engage in meaningful consultation with the title holder before they proceed Although the Aboriginal title holder does not have to consent to the activity meaningful consultation is required before infringement of the right can take place 2 Tsilhqotʼin Nation v British ColumbiaSupreme Court of CanadaHearing 7 November 2013 Judgment 26 June 2014Citations2014 SCC 44Docket No 34986Prior historyAppealed from British ColumbiaRulingAppeal allowedCourt membershipChief Justice Beverley McLachlinPuisne Justices Louis LeBel Rosalie Abella Marshall Rothstein Thomas Cromwell Michael Moldaver Andromache Karakatsanis Richard WagnerReasons givenUnanimous reasons byBeverly McLachlin Contents 1 Background 2 Lower courts 3 Decision of the Supreme Court 3 1 Aboriginal title 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksBackground EditIn 1983 the province of British Columbia issued a licence to Carrier Lumber to cut trees in lands that included remote central British Columbia territory which was claimed by the Xeni Gwetʼin band of the Tsilhqotʼin The Tsilhqotʼin are a semi nomadic group of First Nations people who had lived in the area for centuries managing these lands and repelling invaders The Xeni Gwetʼin blockaded the area preventing Carrier from logging The company conducted unsuccessful negotiations with the provincial government to continue logging 3 The Xeni Gwetʼin filed suit seeking a court declaration that would prohibit Carrier Lumber s commercial logging operations in this area and establish their claim for Aboriginal title to the land which was part of their historical territory Lower courts EditAt trial which lasted five years both the federal and provincial governments opposed the title claim The trial judge applied a test for Aboriginal title that examined whether the Xeni Gwet in regularly and exclusively used the sites or territory within the claim area The trial judge rejected the title claim for procedural reasons In 2012 the decision was appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal where the court upheld the decision that the Tsilhqotʼin did not hold title to these lands except for limited situations 4 The court applied a more stringent title test that examined site specific occupation of definite tracts of land at the time of European sovereignty Decision of the Supreme Court EditThe Supreme Court led by Beverly McLachlin unanimously allowed the appeal They ruled that the Tsilhqotʼin did have a claim of Aboriginal title to the 1 750 square kilometres 680 sq mi they had historically occupied Aboriginal title Edit The court held that Aboriginal title constitutes a beneficial interest in the land the underlying control of which is retained by the Crown 5 Rights conferred by Aboriginal title include the right to decide how the land will be used to enjoy occupy and possess the land and to proactively use and manage the land including its natural resources 6 But the court set out a Sparrow style mechanism by which the Crown can override Aboriginal title in the public interest the Crown must have carried out consultation and accommodation the Crown s actions must have been supported by a compelling and substantial objective and the Crown s action must have been consistent with its fiduciary obligation to the Aboriginal body in question 7 See also EditAboriginal land title in Canada Calder v British Columbia AG 1971 Guerin v The Queen 1984 R v Sparrow 1990 Delgamuukw v British Columbia 1997 Grassy Narrows First Nation v Ontario Natural Resources 2014 References Edit Tsilhqotʼin Nation v British Columbia 2014 SCC 44 MacCharles Tonda 26 June 2014 Supreme Court grants land title to B C First Nation in landmark case Toronto Star Retrieved 26 June 2014 SCC para 5 SCC para 8 SCC para 70 SCC par 73 SCC para 77External links EditTsilhqotʼin Nation v British Columbia at the Supreme Court of Canada Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Tsilhqotʼin Nation v British Columbia amp oldid 1131815960, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
