BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:Ah, but which Britons? The Saxons? The Celts? The Neanderthals? The problem with undoing history is deciding how far to go back.
Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching
as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...-------------------------Cool. For our next trick, Great Britain goes back to the Britons and
The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada
(Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved
aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) and
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):
France to the Gauls.
Land title was a fiction from English law. There was no native title to--
extinguish because they had no land tenure system.
(1) Sufficient Occupation(2) Continuity(3) ExclusivityHow many centuries of taxes did they forget to pay? That's the duty of
the land owner. Fork it over.
Effect on Private Property:This was the first Canadian court decision to declare aboriginal title over
lands including fee simple (private) ownership. The court ruled that Crown
grants and vestings were issued without statutory or constitutional authority
(violating Article 13 of BC's Terms of Union and reserve policies),
constituting unjustifiable infringements on aboriginal title under the Sparrow
and Tsilhqot'in frameworks.These grants did not extinguish title, as provinces lack jurisdiction to do
so; instead, aboriginal title coexists as a prior, senior right that burdens
fee simple interests.[In other words, good luck ever selling your house.]I've never heard of a senior right burden on fee simple. The banks will
have to foreclose on the Indians.
For developed and private lands (about 125 privately held properties in theAh. There is no justice, just endless work for lawyers.
claim area): Fee simple titles held by third parties (private owners) remain
valid and indefeasible under the Land Title Act until reconciled through
negotiation or further litigation.
Can the Indians now be sued for land and water pollution and other
nuisances?
Owners can continue using their property but aboriginal title constrains
incompatible uses (e.g., no new developments without consent or
justification).\[Gee, thanks, judge for your permission to continue to live in my own house.]Legal defenses such as limitations periods, laches, and bona fide purchaserIt's moviePig law!
status were rejected by the court, despite being both relevant and legitimate
defenses, in order to "prioritize reconciliation".
[In other words, appeasing the Indians is what's important here so if we have
to ignore the law to keep you white people from prevailing here, that's what
we're going to do.]Effect on Public Property:Titles held by Canada (mostly industrial) and the City of Richmond (mostlyWow. The artificial land too that the Indians had the technology to
undeveloped) were declared defective and invalid, with the ruling suspended
for 18 months to allow transfer back to the Cowichan Tribes (except a 12-acre
airport fuel depot). All lands belonging to the Vancouver Fraser Port
Authority were ceded back to the tribe.
build?
The ruling creates uncertainty for private landowners in Richmond, who may
face clouded titles but not immediate eviction from their homes or loss of
deeds.Affected homeowners were not formally notified during the trial (a 2017 ruling
by the judge deemed it necessary to avoid hostility), leading to surprise when
the verdict was handed down and a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging
malfeasance by the government.
Rhino
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.