The province of B.C. claims public confidence in the land registration system and the “essential work of reconciliation” is in peril.
Meanwhile, the City of Richmond says the “property of thousands of Richmond’s citizens” could be at risk in the event of catastrophic flooding.
The Port of Vancouver claims port operations, leaseholders and businesses employing hundreds of people could face a “chaotic situation.”
And both the Musqueam Indian Band and Tsawwassen First Nation say they’re being squeezed out of their traditional fishing grounds.
‘It would be wrong’: Why Richmond, B.C., residents weren’t told about First Nation’s claim to title
CBC News has obtained copies of lengthy submissions filed in B.C.’s Court of Appeal earlier this month, in multiple bids to stay parts of the landmark B.C. Supreme Court Quw’utsun (Cowichan) Nation Aboriginal title decision before it comes into full effect in February 2027.
Six of the parties appealing the ruling claim dire consequences could flow from Justice Barbara Young’s decision — which they claim impacts dikes, private property, a port transporation hub and the right to fish in waters claimed by other First Nations.
To that end, the province, Canada’s attorney general, the port, the City of Richmond and the Musqueam and Tsawwassen Nations will be in court in January asking for a freeze on certain parts of the ruling while the full appeal process plays out.
The Quw’utsun Nation have yet to file their response to the claims, but their lawyer told CBC News “they have solutions to each and every one” of the alleged harms.
The documents include affidavits from executives about the uncertainty hanging over the Port of Vancouver, as well as a First Nations fisheries co-ordinator who claims “Cowichan fishing vessels were in the south arm [of the Fraser River] the day after the trial decision was released.”
The more than 5,000 pages of filings also contain the back and forth between a lawyer for the province and a lawyer for the Quw’utsun over the definition of the term “private landowners” — and the question of legal action against future purchasers of the affected land.
The Cowichan decision is heading to the province’s highest court as an election plays out. From left: B.C. Green Party Leader Emily Lowan, B.C. NDP Leader David Eby and B.C. Conservative Leader Lorne Doerkson. (Ethan Cairns/CBC)
“Justice Young was speaking of ‘the private fee simple title holders’ as of the date of judgment. Your definition purports to define private landowners to include those who acquire their interest post-judgment,” the Quw’utsun lawyer wrote to his counterpart for the Crown.
“You define private landowners in your letter in a way that does not restrict the definition in any temporal sense so that it would include future purchasers from present landowners in the Cowichan Title lands … The Quw’utsun Nation has not and does not resile from protecting its Aboriginal title in future litigation regarding the Cowichan Title lands.”
B.C. and Cowichan chiefs start negotiations after court ruling on Aboriginal title
The relationship between Aboriginal title and private property dominated headlines following the initial release of Young’s decision in August 2025, but the appeal court documents show just how consequential the rest of the ruling promises to be.
Taken as a whole, the arguments provide a detailed window into one of the most contentious issues facing British Columbia — one playing out in the province’s highest court even as the politicians vying to lead B.C. head into an election this weekend.
Young’s decision established Aboriginal title for the Quw’utsun over up to 325 hectares (800 acres) of riverside property and submerged land in Richmond owned by the federal Crown, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, the City of Richmond and private landowners.
The 600-page ruling also declared the Quw’utsun’s Aboriginal right to fish for food in the south arm of of the Fraser River — traditional territory for both the Musqueam and Tsawwassen.
In 1859, British Columbia’s first governor — James Douglas — promised to set aside the land claimed by the Quw’utsun from sale or claims from settlers. (B.C. Archives/Wikipedia)
Young delved into the history of the area to conclude the Crown lacked authority to sell or distribute the land — set aside long ago by B.C.’s first governor as the site of a traditional Quw’utsun village.
While the Quw’utsun said they weren’t asking the judge to invalidate ownership of the dozens of private properties covered by the ruling, Young addressed the issue regardless, responding to arguments raised by Richmond and the province on behalf of private landowners.
The judge said the Quw’utsun’s Aboriginal title extends to the privately-owned property — held through what is known in law as “fee simple.”
But she suggested the two forms of title can coexist, saying “the property rights of the private landowners are not undermined.” The judge said it would be up to the Crown and the Quw’utsun to “negotiate and reconcile” Aboriginal title and private interests.
‘Cloud’ of tension between Aboriginal title and private property ownership lands in B.C.
The province, Canada’s attorney general, the Port of Vancouver, the City of Richmond, the Musqueam Indian Band and the Tsawwassen First Nation all appealed — as did the Quw’utsun, who had originally sought Aboriginal title to a much larger area.
The portion of the decision implicating private property and fishing rights went into immediate effect, but Young suspended the parts affecting the port and the City of Richmond for 18 months to give the parties time to deal with the fallout from her decision.
But with that Feb. 7 deadline fast approaching, it’s clear from the Appeal Court proceedings the matter is far from settled.
Arguments on the appeals themselves are set to begin in November 2027.
But first, the court will meet in January to decide on six stay applications — which argue that allowing Young’s ruling to come into full effect before the appeal court has reached a final decision would cause “irreparable harm.”
Lawyers for all parties gathered in a sixth-floor courtroom in downtown Vancouver last Thursday for a case management conference, with the Appeal Court registrar tasked with wrangling dates, schedules and material for the judges who will ultimately decide the case.
The interior of a courtroom is shown at the B.C. Supreme Court building where lawyers have been meeting in the lead-up to appeal court proceedings related to the Quw’utsun decision. (Ben Nelms/CBC)
More than a dozen lawyers — most in person, some appearing virtually — easily outnumbered the handful of people in the public gallery.
The registrar told the lawyers they could dispense with some formalities: “We’ll be here all afternoon if we introduce ourselves.”
A intense phalanx of suited lawyers shuffled in and out of the courtroom as they huddled to come up with a proposed schedule for filings.
In total, eight separate but related appeal cases have been filed — seven from the original parties, and another from a landowner who lost a bid to reopen the Supreme Court proceedings this summer.
Lawsuit attempting to reopen Cowichan Aboriginal title case dismissed
Further complicating the proceedings: an as-yet-unknown number of intervenors.
The court file includes a letter from a lawyer for the Independent Contractors and Business Association (ICBA), asking to intervene on behalf of 5,000 members in the construction and development industry — a number of whom have interests in the claim area.
“Should leave be granted, ICBA expects to address the implications of the trial decision from the perspective of the construction and development industry, which relies on aspects of the land title system,” the letter says.
In addition, a lawyer for the province told the registrar he has been contacted by “what I would call 10 serious potential intervenors.”
New Cowichan documents warn of far-reaching impacts of landmark court case
Because of the unprecedented nature of the issues at play, the Crown is seeking a hearing by a special panel of five Appeal Court justices instead of the normal three-judge panel.
Each of the stay applications seeks a halt to different parts of Young’s rulings: the declaration of fishing rights, Aboriginal title over certain fee-simple lands owned by Richmond and Aboriginal title over the Port of Vancouver lands.
The province also wants an order stopping the Cowichan from taking steps to enforce their title against the private property owners.
In each case, the judges have to decide if a serious legal issue exists, whether real, “irreparable” harm is threatened and — crucially — how the risks to each side balance out.
The ruling established Aboriginal title for the Quw’utsun over up to 325 hectares of riverside property and submerged land in Richmond owned by the federal Crown, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, the City of Richmond and private landowners. (CBC News)
The Quw’utsun have yet to file their responses to the stay applications. The registrar gave them a mid-December deadline.
At the case management conference, Quw’utsun lawyer David Rosenberg noted the “avalanche” of material facing his clients.
B.C. and Cowichan chiefs start negotiations after court ruling on Aboriginal title
In an email to CBC News, the veteran lawyer provided a broad outline of his client’s position.
“There have been many inaccurate statements made by politicians about this case, and those statements have caused unnecessary fear and anxiety,” Rosenberg wrote.
“The truth is that anyone who is familiar with the history in this case knows that it is exceptional in many ways and does not have general application to either all claimed [Aboriginal] title lands or all private property,” he added.
Each submission makes a distinct set of arguments.
The province’s filings speak directly to public debate surrounding Young’s decision, including a list of newspaper articles with headlines like, “It’s Scary;” “This Land is Not Your Land” and “Canada’s $1 Billion Question: Do Property Rights Still Exist in British Columbia?”
The court documents say the decision has “cast serious doubt” on the rights of private landowners.
Richmond resident Kal Matt is seen raising frustrations over the notification process about the Cowichan Tribes Aboriginal title case, during a town hall meeting on Oct. 28, 2025. (Glen Kugelstadt/CBC)
“The province has requested clarity and assurance from the Cowichan that no steps will be taken to enforce or exercise Aboriginal title against private landowners pending a determination of the appeal,” the province says in its arguments.
“However to date, the Cowichan have declined this request. This refusal has left private landowners — and the public generally — facing a present spectre of direct action, including litigation, by the Cowichan.”
B.C. attorney general, Cowichan Nation lawyers welcome Supreme Court decision on N.B. case
The province says it’s charged “with promoting and protecting the public interest in myriad ways, including through maintenance of a reliable provincial system of land registration and through undertaking the challenging but essential work of reconciliation.”
“The threat of litigation over the non-party private lands, the significant uncertainty resulting from the trial court’s findings … and the imminent invalidation of some registered interests … are not conducive to negotiation or reconciliation,” claims the province.
The Attorney General of Canada and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) both filed sets of submissions warning of the potential impact of Young’s decisions on large sections of the claim area operated and managed by the port authority.
The VFPA says the area the port manages contains “strategically-located industrial lands, uniquely placed to support integrated port operations and facilitate international trade.”
“The lands include rail infrastructure, regional roads, office buildings, warehousing and transloading facilities and container storage areas,” the court documents read.
The Port of Vancouver claims the land it manages in Richmond is part of infrastructure ‘uniquely placed to support integrated port operations and facilitate international trade.’ (Ben Nelms/CBC)
The submissions include an affidavit from Tanjit Kalhar, chief executive officer of Euro Asia Transload Inc., a company that leases 21.4 hectares (53 acres) at the Richmond terminal.
“It handles cargo such as liquor, tires, electronics, pulp, paper, steel coils, lumber and Amazon products,” the affidavit reads.
“Operations at the terminal play a vital role in the British Columbian and Canadian supply chain an economy.”
The court filings include letters the Quw’utsun sent to Kalhar and other business owners inviting them to submit “a detailed proposal to replace” the current leases they have with the port.
But Kalhar claims the uncertainty threatens the long-term stability of the business, which employs hundreds of people.
An affidavit included in the Port of Vancouver’s submissions from a leaseholder claims the uncertainty over the Cowichan Tribes case is affecting operations. (Ben Nelms/CBC)
The attorney general’s submissions echo that point.
“The uncertainty will have further knock-on effects on associated customers and suppliers, transportation providers, and other port users whose operations are connected to business that operate on these lands within the Port of Vancouver,” the arguments read.
“The ability of all these businesses to continue operating on the Canada lands would be at risk. There is currently no suitable alternative location for these port operations and, even if there were, relocation would be a major undertaking that would cause significant disruption and come with a direct financial cost.”
Beyond those points, the port authority also raises questions about the aspects of Young’s decision finding Aboriginal title on fee simple land — including federal property.
“The trial order undermines public confidence in the ability of Parliament to invest in Canada’s ports in the public interest,” the court documents say.
While Richmond’s broader appeal concerns multiple aspects of Young’s decision, the city’s stay application centres on pair of shoreline lots on the south arm of the Fraser River that Richmond acquired in the 1930s when the previous owners failed to pay municipal taxes.
According to the city’s submissions, the lots in question contain parts of a perimeter dike that protects the “flat-and low-lying” region from “sea level rise, storm surge, freshet and rainfall.”
The City of Richmond says it needs access a perimeter dike and pump station through land located on the Quw’utsun claim area in order to protect residents from floods. (Maryse Zeidler/CBC)
The lots also allegedly provide access to a pump station which moves floodwater out of the city and into the Fraser River or the sea.
The court documents claim the pump station requires weekly — and sometimes daily — inspections to “ensure that it does not present any flooding risk or other safety hazard to the public.”
Richmond says it does not have authority to unilaterally enter private land to maintain or inspect dikes.
City of Richmond lawyers argue the B.C. Supreme Court ruling could jeopardize dikes and flood safety. (Steven Chua/CBC)
The city says it has reached agreements with other landowners resulting in legally guaranteed access to the property, but claims that kind of deal is “facially incompatible” with Young’s ruling.
The city says it’s looking for a “tailored stay” to “ensure that Richmond is in a position to adequately maintain critical flood-protection” pending a final decision on the appeal.
“The safety and property of thousands of Richmond’s citizens who are not parties to this litigation … would be at risk if the city cannot mobilize immediately,” the city argues.
The Musqueam Indian Band and the Tsawwassen First Nation make similar arguments in their stay applications, which seek to stay Young’s declaration of the Cowichan’s right to fish in the south arm of the Fraser.
Both the Musqueam and the Tsawwassen recount their history in the area.
The Musqueam Indian Band and the Tsawwassen First Nation claim the Cowichan are squeezing them out of areas where they traditionally fish for salmon. The First Nations are asking for a stay of a Supreme Court decision pending appeal. (CBC)
The Musqueam claim they have lived along the region’s waterways for more than 8,000 years and “have engaged in a fishing practice that has provided sustenance as well as cultural foundations persisting into the present day.”
The Tsawwassen say they “are a fishing people and their identity is tied to the Fraser River and the sea.”
Both groups claim their ability to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes “was already severely constrained,” pointing to the “sustained decline” of Fraser River fish stocks in the years prior to Young’s decision.
Both the Musqueam and the Tsawwassen claim the Quw’utsun ruling has placed an already threatened resource at further risk — singling out an alleged threat to the Chinook salmon population.
“Immediately following the release of the trial decision, members of the Cowichan Nation began fishing in the south arm without consulting Musqueam and without its consent,” the Musqueam claim.
“The increased number of boats in the south arm due to the presence of the Cowichan Nation are crowding out Musqueam’s ability to fish in the narrow section of the river.”
The Musqueam and Tsawwassen First Nations claim the Supreme Court ruling is threatening already depleted stocks of Chinook salmon. (Claudiane Samson/Radio-Canada)
The Tsawwassen Fisrt Nation claim they weren’t given “notice by the Cowichan or by Canada, let alone consulted, despite holding consultative rights in the Tsawwassen Territory.”
“The added vessels mean it takes [Tsawwassen] fishers more time, and costs more to meet their allocation,” the Tsawwassen claim.
“And fishing in a more crowded window makes it harder to do so safely.”
The Quw’utsun are expected to file a single response to all six applications by Dec. 18.
Rosenberg gave CBC News a broad outline of the arguments he expects to make.
“For some of them it’s simply reaching out to the Cowichan Nation and reaching an agreement so they can — for example — maintain the dikes and the pumping station with our consent and permission,” he said.
“Fishing is really a management issue that they should be dealing with Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but it’s not a zero sum game, and Aboriginal rights are not exclusive so it’s a shared right and that’s the law.”
Cowichan title lands encompass multimillion-dollar mansions in Richmond, B.C.
Rosenberg said the Port of Vancouver and Canada were given 18 months to arrange a transition “and that’s what they should be [focused] on.”
The lawyer said he can’t discuss ongoing negotiations with the Crown, but he said part of Young’s ruling was a declaration that British Columbia has a duty to negotiate in good faith to reconcile the private property interests with Cowichan Aboriginal title.
“The Cowichan will put forward a way in which the Crown acting honourably could protect the Cowichan Title lands and the private property interests,” Rosenberg said.
He said it’s also important to bear in mind the unique nature of the land in question, which was like “a special reserve that was supposed to be created and was never created and it would not apply to all Aboriginal title land and it wouldn’t apply to all fee simple or all private property.”
Why uncertainty over end result of Cowichan Tribes case invites plenty of speculation
Rosenberg told CBC News he couldn’t help but make a final point about the province’s application.
“When British Columbia asks to enjoin or prevent the Cowichan Nation from protecting their Aboriginal title lands in future litigation, it harkens back to a dark period in British Columbia history when Indigenous people were not allowed to go to court to protect their rights,” he said.
“And that is something that is dishonourable and should be avoided at all costs.”
