the Crown must have carried out consultation and accommodation; the Crown's actions must have been supported by a compelling and substantial objective; and. Let us help you stay up to date. In 2012, the decision was appealed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, where the court upheld the decision that the Tsilhqot'in did not hold title to these lands, except for limited situations. The case, brought by Roger William on behalf of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government and all Tsilhqot’in people, involved a claim seeking recognition of Aboriginal title to two tracts of land in the Tsilhqot’in traditional territory. The Court held that “occupation” was established for the purpose of proving Aboriginal title by evidence showing regular and exclusive use of sites or territory.

(PDF), Mock Records, Request to Use Activity Book (PDF), Year mjamal@osler.com Talks with the province were unsuccessful, and the original land claim was amended to include a claim for Aboriginal title over 4,380 square kilometres – an area slightly smaller than Prince Edward Island and which comprises a small fraction of the Tsilhqot’in traditional territory. The band objected and sought a declaration prohibiting commercial logging on the land. 2019, Reasons The Tsilhqot'in are a semi-nomadic group of First Nations people who had lived in the area for centuries, managing these lands and repelling invaders. Court, Office of the Registrar In order to grant such harvesting rights in the future, the government will be required to establish a compelling and substantial objective. Documents after Leave has been Granted or After Notice The band objected and sought a declaration prohibiting commercial logging on the land. afallon@osler.com connected. Role of the First Nation in landmark case", Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, Ongoing treaty negotiations in British Columbia, Definitions and identity of indigenous peoples, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Index of articles related to Indigenous Canadians, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tsilhqot%27in_Nation_v_British_Columbia&oldid=972541838, All Wikipedia articles written in Canadian English, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Talks with the province were unsuccessful, and the original land claim was amended to include a claim for Aboriginal title over 4,380 square kilometres – an area sl… tgelbman@osler.com

cfeasby@osler.com On this basis, the trial judge found that the Tsilhqot’in people were entitled to a declaration of Aboriginal title to a portion of the claim area as well as a small area outside the claim area. The Decision is consistent with earlier SCC case law regarding Aboriginal rights and title generally. The trial commenced in 2002 before the British Columbia Supreme Court and continued for 339 days over a span of five years.

jekennedy@osler.com Request, Resources for 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.

for the, All In 1983, British Columbia granted a commercial logging licence on land considered by the Tsilhqot’in people to be part of their traditional territory. Sharing, Internet Sources Cited To justify an infringement of Aboriginal title, the government must show (i) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate; (ii) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial legislative objective; and (iii) that the governmental action is consistent with any Crown fiduciary obligation to the group. T he importance of the recent Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 (the “Decision”) has not gone unnoticed, being variously referred to as “historic”, a “game-changer” and a “landmark” decision. The test requires that an Aboriginal group asserting title satisfy the following criteria: (i) the land must have been occupied prior to sovereignty; (ii) if present occupation is relied on as proof of occupation pre-sovereignty, occupation must have been continuous since pre-sovereignty; and (iii) at sovereignty, that occupation must have been exclusive. Registry, Preparing for System, Creation and In cases in which Aboriginal title is unproven, the SCC affirmed the well-established requirement that the Crown owes a procedural duty to consult imposed by the honour of the Crown and, if appropriate, to accommodate the unproven Aboriginal interest. With the exception of the SCC’s finding on Morris, the Decision does not result in a change to existing law. have been named as a respondent on an sduncanson@osler.com and resources for self-represented litigants who

the Crown's action must have been consistent with its fiduciary obligation to the Aboriginal body in question. They ruled that the Tsilhqot'in did have a claim of Aboriginal title to the 1,750 square kilometres (680 sq mi) region they had historically occupied. Facilities, Media Briefings and Lock-ups, Access to Court This particular guidance to governments should initiate an extensive review by all governments of their legislation affecting lands to ensure that the objectives of such legislation are clear and unambiguous because they will likely form a core component to any future justification. mignasiak@osler.com The Xeni Gwet'in blockaded the area, preventing Carrier from logging. Hearing, After the pwelsh@osler.com The court held that Aboriginal title constitutes a beneficial interest in the land, the underlying control of which is retained by the Crown. Issues, Other Once established, Aboriginal title gives the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land for a variety of purposes, not confined to traditional or distinctive uses.

But in many respects the decision simply adopts and applies existing jurisprudence and does not represent a substantial change in the law of Aboriginal title. If the Aboriginal title holder does not consent to the proposed use of the land, the government must establish that the proposed incursion on the land is justified under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Despite the significant media attention that the recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 (Decision) has received, it represents a reiteration of established law regarding Aboriginal title that has been developed over decades. Lost in the headlines is that the Decision provides greater certainty and clarity for the application of provincial laws and regulatory regimes on Aboriginal title lands.

Beginnings of the Court, General been served with an application for We have built our reputation on our commitment to our clients' success and the experience, expertise and collaborative approach for which we are recognized. [6] But, the court set out a Sparrow-style mechanism by which the Crown can override Aboriginal title in the public interest: Note: "Aboriginal law" refers to Canadian law dealing with indigenous peoples, whereas "indigenous law" refers to the customary law of individual indigenous groups. may wish to apply for leave to appeal, Important List of all Chief Justices and Judges, Webcasts of of Terms, Sources 403.260.7088, Colin Feasby, partner to the 2019 Amendments to the, Fees At trial, which lasted five years, both the federal and provincial governments opposed the title claim.