A recent ruling by the British Columbia Supreme Court has raised significant questions about property ownership in the province. The court declared Aboriginal title for the Cowichan Tribes over approximately 325 hectares of land in Richmond, marking the first time such a title has been recognized on private property in British Columbia. This decision could set a troubling precedent if it is not overturned, as the province's attorney general has promised to appeal the ruling.

The court's judgment also stated that fee simple land titles, the standard form of private property ownership in Canada, are "defective and invalid." This determination is based on the assertion that the Crown lacked the authority to issue these titles in the first place. Constitutional law professor Dwight Newman noted that if past fee simple grants in areas with Aboriginal title claims are deemed invalid, it could imply that any privately owned land in British Columbia might be subject to Aboriginal title claims.

The ruling does not currently affect privately held land in the newly recognized Aboriginal title area because the Cowichan Tribes did not request such a declaration. However, the judge acknowledged that this could change in the future. The ruling states that while fee simple interests may remain unaffected in practice, they are not conclusive evidence of ownership against Aboriginal title holders.

The case also highlights the complexity of land claims in British Columbia, where many Indigenous groups assert traditional territory rights. The Musqueam and Tsawwassen First Nations contested the Cowichan Tribes' claim, underscoring the issue of competing claims among the province's more than 200 Indigenous groups.

Previous Supreme Court decisions, such as Tsilhqot’in in 2014 and Nuchatlaht in 2024, recognized Aboriginal title in British Columbia but did not extend it to privately held lands. The B.C. government has indicated its intention to appeal the recent decision while simultaneously pursuing similar policies through legislation. The Haida Nation Recognition Act, enacted in 2024, controversially overlays Aboriginal title on private land and was referenced in the Cowichan case.

The judge in the Cowichan case suggested that Aboriginal title and fee simple ownership could coexist, a claim that raises legal concerns. Analysts argue that the rights associated with both interests are fundamentally incompatible, as both include exclusive rights to use and manage the land. The Constitution protects Aboriginal title, while private property rights do not have the same level of constitutional protection. This disparity could lead to conflicts in future court cases, with Aboriginal title likely prevailing.

B.C. Premier David Eby has previously indicated plans to use the Haida agreement as a model for other areas in the province, further complicating the landscape of property rights and Indigenous claims.