BREAKING: Supreme Court Refuses Aboriginal Title Appeal, Major Win For Private Property Rights

Added: 2026-05-30

[00:00:00]Ladies and gentlemen, we bring you breaking news as the Supreme Court of Canada has just refused to hear a major aboriginal title appeal out of New Brunswick, leaving in place a ruling that says aboriginal title cannot be declared over privately owned fee simple land.

[00:00:17]This is a ruling that has national implications, especially regarding the Cowichan case, and paves a clear path for that decision to be appealed all the way to the highest court in the land.

[00:00:31]And if the Cowichan case actually does reach the Supreme Court of Canada, it may be the case that finally forces the country's highest court to answer the question directly for all of Canada.

[00:00:44]Let's take a look.

[00:00:47]Supreme Court won't hear Wolastoqey appeal of aboriginal title ruling.

[00:00:54]Decision means private industrial forest land in New Brunswick will remain excluded from title claim over ownership. Private industrial forest land in New Brunswick will remain excluded from an ownership claim by Wolastoqey First Nations after the Supreme Court of Canada turned down an application to hear the case. It means the New Brunswick Court of Appeals ruling from last December is the final word on the issue.

[00:01:17]The title claim case can continue, but the First Nations will only be able to seek damages and compensation for the loss of their traditional lands.

[00:01:26]They will not be able to assert ongoing ownership. Last December, New Brunswick's Appeal Court ruling said there is, quote, "an important difference between a finding of aboriginal title and a judicial declaration of aboriginal title," end quote.

[00:01:43]A declaration would award present-day ownership, while a finding would acknowledge the Wolastoqey Nations never gave up ownership and deserve compensation.

[00:01:54]Former Chief Justice Ernest Drapeau said in last year's ruling he was seeking, {quote} to open a clearer path to peaceful and respectful reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in this province, and {quote}.

[00:02:08]The court must respect the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in the 2014 uh Tsilhqot'in decision that reconciliation involves a balance between Indigenous and non-Indigenous interests, he wrote.

[00:02:23]He said granting, {quote} exclusive possession, occupation, and use, and {quote} of the land to the Wolastoqey Nations, {quote} would sound the death knell of reconciliation with the interests of non-Aboriginal Canadians, and {quote}.

[00:02:37]In a statement, the six chiefs of the Wolastoqey Nation said they remain, {quote} resolute, resolute in their pursuit of title, and {quote}. {quote} The fight for our homeland will continue, and {quote} said Chief Patricia Bernard of the Madawaska Maliseet First Nation.

[00:02:57]Bernard said the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case does not mean it agreed with the New Brunswick Court of Appeal's reasoning.

[00:03:04]{quote} Canadians expect that the Supreme Court will eventually need to clarify the law on whether Aboriginal title can be recognized in relation to privately held lands, and {quote} she said. She called on governments to consult Wolastoqey Nations on all decisions about their land, and said they would continue to advance their title claim. And McInerney, a spokesperson for J.D. Irving Limited, the largest of the three forestry companies that asked to be excluded, said Thursday the company would not comment.

[00:03:34]As is normally the case, the Supreme Court did not give reasons for choosing not to hear the case. In 2021, the Wolastoqey Nations added private industrial landowners to their existing Aboriginal title claim against the federal and provincial governments. They argue they never ceded the land to the Crown, which nonetheless took it and later sold it to private owners without their consent.

[00:03:56]Three large forestry companies, J.D.

[00:03:58]Irving Limited, H.J. Crab & Sons, and Acadian Timber, applied to have forest land they own excluded from the case.

[00:04:06]Drapeau's ruling said the companies had no role in the initial taking of unceded land, and any legal bid for a declaration of title would not succeed.

[00:04:16]He said once the companies succeeded in removing themselves as defendants in the case, it would deprive them of their right to procedural fairness if their ownership of their land, known as fee simple ownership, was an issue.

[00:04:29]His comment that Aboriginal title could not, quote unquote, coexist with conventional fee simple private ownership appeared to be at odds with a recent title claim ruling in British Columbia.

[00:04:41]In the Cowichan case in B.C., a judge declared the coexistence of Aboriginal title alongside private property title on land owned by around 125 Richmond residents within the Cowichan Nation's roughly 325 hectare claim area.

[00:04:59]"That means the law is different for people depending on where they live, and that can't stand." And quote, Green Party leader David said at the legislature. speculated the Supreme Court will wait for the B.C. case to reach them, quote, "And they'll hear that and render a decision that will have an impact on everyone." End quote.

[00:05:20]Earlier this month, lawyers for a B.C.

[00:05:22]private landowner tried to reopen that case based on Drapeau's ruling in the Wolastoqey case. That decision is still pending.

[00:05:30]New Brunswick Attorney General Rob McKee did not make himself available to reporters to comment on the Supreme Court's decision.

[00:05:38]The provincial government is not a party to the Wolastoqey title claim case and has said it would prefer to negotiate a settlement in the case. All right, folks.

[00:05:49]So, we actually reported on this case back in December, if you recall, and we had said at the time and predicted that this would probably have huge reaching implications. Turns out, we are happily correct on that one.

[00:06:05]We're not right all the time, but that prediction we're actually happy to be correct on.

[00:06:10]And here's the difference here.

[00:06:12]So, in New Brunswick, this uh this court had said, "Listen, if you want to advance your title claim, that's fine, but you can't do it on private land because the people that have bought that land had nothing to do with the original dispute. So, we are keeping that separate because from a legal standpoint, they acquired the land legally.

[00:06:38]Whether it was sold to them legally is a different issue, but they acquired it legally and we're not about to kick people off their land and just hand that over.

[00:06:46]Now, even in saying that, that almost never ever happens.

[00:06:52]In the Cowichan case, it was speculated that people were going to be thrown off their land in 18 months after the decision, and we said, "No, that's not going to happen." And we ended up catching some criticism for that, which is fine. We're going to disagree on a lot of things, but our position was that the case itself was not against the owners of the private land. It was mainly against the Crown land. It was just bundled in with the whole claim.

[00:07:21]And we had pointed to the fact that the Cowichan uh side of the lawsuit had actually explicitly stated they weren't interested in it.

[00:07:28]And in the ruling, the judge explicitly states that the Cowichan stated that it wasn't explicitly stated, so she's not ruling on the uh on the issues of private property there.

[00:07:39]Now, what we did say is it doesn't settle the issue of private property and indigenous and Aboriginal land claims.

[00:07:47]Because there's different impacts that can happen.

[00:07:50]People have brought forward um accusations that people are having issues getting mortgages approved.

[00:07:57]We've only heard of one specific case, but nobody has brought any evidence to us to actually prove that that's actually happening.

[00:08:05]So, what as it um as it pertains to the Couching case and what's going on in BC, what we did agree and everyone can agree on is that this issue isn't settled and that the issue of private property isn't settled.

[00:08:23]Because we see claim after claim after claim being brought forth that is potentially including private property.

[00:08:30]And that's not right.

[00:08:33]It's not right because people have acquired this this land in good faith and in many cases it has changed hands many, many times.

[00:08:44]In almost all cases where Aboriginal a claim is granted on private land, in almost all cases, that land is never given to the Aboriginal title holder that it was granted to.

[00:09:02]What almost always happens is that becomes part of this compensation package that the provincial or federal government ends up giving to the Aboriginal plaintiff.

[00:09:14]Meaning the people who own the private property at the time that the claim was made, um say today, they keep that property.

[00:09:21]It doesn't change hands, they don't get kicked off, and they don't have to cede it to the Aboriginal claimant. What ends up happening is there there's a dollar value placed on their land and that's what the governments end up compensating the Aboriginal tribes with. That's what happens.

[00:09:38]So, in almost all cases, people are not kicked off their land.

[00:09:44]It doesn't diminish the question as to what it means, though.

[00:09:49]So, this is where this this ruling Well, it's not even a ruling. The decision of the Supreme Court not to hear this case essentially means Now, they're trying to the the lawyers are trying to say, "Well, that means that the it doesn't really mean anything. It doesn't say that the Supreme Court agreed with the decision."

[00:10:11]Well, it kind of does. Because what it means is that the Supreme Court reviewed the case and said, "There's no reason to appeal. There's no reason for us to hear it."

[00:10:26]That's basically what it means.

[00:10:28]If I interpret that, and I'm not a legal expert, but if I interpret that, what that says to me is they've reviewed it and it's so sound that there's there's nothing really to latch onto that is even worth considering.

[00:10:40]So, what does that mean? Well, you now look at the Cowichan case.

[00:10:45]The Cowichan case, that could be brought that that actually now does give it an appeal path.

[00:10:52]Because they're going to look at the the Velasquez ruling from the Appeal Court, and they'll point to that and saying, "Well, listen, that ruling says that private property should be completely excluded."

[00:11:08]So, this is where the Cowichan case, they can say, "You know, we want to appeal that decision because we want the court to decide on whether private property should be included."

[00:11:20]And this is where the reverse can actually happen where it may actually make it justified for the Supreme Court to hear this case. First, it has to go to the Federal Court or the Provincial Court of Appeals, but then it goes up to the Supreme Court.

[00:11:34]Um so it makes it more likely, in my humble opinion, my non-legally trained opinion, that the case will hear an appeal at the appeal court. Now, if they decide that well, that ruling needs to be adjusted and it can't improve can't include uh private fee simple land and then that's appealed again at that point, you may see the Supreme Court say, "No, we agree with that." And it shoves it back down and up upholds the decision.

[00:12:06]Unless they they try and take it right to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[00:12:11]So, this is actually really good news. The The the question isn't settled yet though, folks.

[00:12:18]I want to make that clear.

[00:12:20]It's settled for New Brunswick.

[00:12:22]That's what that decision has has done.

[00:12:24]It's settled for New Brunswick.

[00:12:27]But, it potentially sets it up to be settled for whenever a decision like this makes it to the Supreme Court of Canada, because they've already set a precedent that we're not going to hear this.

[00:12:37]That ruling will stand for New Brunswick. But, it provides a very very important precedent for any other legal challenge, either way, to point to and say, "Listen, on these Aboriginal title claims, you cannot include private property, current owners of private property and the borders of that private property in any of these new claims based on the justification that was in the New Brunswick ruling."

[00:13:06]Very, very important.

[00:13:09]And if it does make it to the Supreme Court at some point, this may lay the groundwork to actually final finally settle this question that we've been hoping someone will settle.

[00:13:24]The issue of of Aboriginal communities coming forward and and uh claiming title on land still is an issue.

[00:13:34]I hope that gets resolved at some point.

[00:13:37]But at least in terms of private property rights and private property claims and ownership, hopefully we are getting closer and closer to a very clear answer so that Canadians across this country can actually have some certainty that when they buy land, they don't have to worry about anybody challenging them for the title.

[00:13:59]>> [music]