pull down to refresh
It seems like most of the commentators are unaware of the nuances of “Aboriginal title”, in Canada, and are interpreting the court decisions as if they were ordinary land claim disputes, for which there is ultimately a single “owner” of the land under dispute, rendering all other claims invalid. JFK Law tries to explain that treaty disputes are not like that, and nor for that matter is land ownership in Canada. The treaty negotiations are at the federal government level, above the provincial level, and does not necessarily impact what we think of as private ownership in the provinces. Instead of your title being a contract between yourself and the Crown, it could be between yourself and the Tribe and the Crown, or the Province and the Tribe. It is still being worked out.
Thanks for the nuance.
Thanks for the clarification. But IMO this article feels a bit like whitewashing, and the law firm who wrote it is obviously on the side of supporting this legal theory.
But the presentation in the WSJ article still seems accurate. The ruling does create legal ambiguity and inconsistencies that could take years to resolve. That still creates a chilling effect in the real estate market and a feeling of uncertainty for private property owners.
And while the Cowichan tribe may surely be well intentioned, and while the judge may prefer negotiated resolutions rather than litigated ones, there is no guarantee that that is how it will play out. I think it's reasonable for property owners feel nervous about this.
Just my understanding of it as a layman, anyway.