BC Landowners Demand Answers on Property Rights Following Aboriginal Title Ruling

Hundreds of Richmond, B.C., homeowners demanded answers about possible threats to their property rights during an Oct. 28 public meeting with city officials about the implications of the landmark Cowichan Nation aboriginal title ruling.

Justice Barbara Young ruled Aug. 7 that the Cowichan Nation have rightful title over roughly 750 acres of land in Richmond due to historical residency in the location of a Cowichan village called Tl’uqtinus. Young ruled that Crown and municipal land titles were “invalid” and had “unjustifiably infringed” on Cowichan land rights. Her ruling was suspended for 18 months to provide enough time for transition of the affected land.

Although the First Nation has made no claim on private property, residents within the affected area received letters earlier this month saying that the Cowichan decision could potentially “compromise the status and validity” of their property ownership.

Residents Speak

Homeowner Kal Mattu, who says he was told by the city that his residence is within the affected area, asked city council members why he should continue to pay taxes to the City of Richmond.

“If I don’t own my land anymore, why am I going to pay the city of Richmond taxes,” Mattu asked Richmond Mayor Malcom Brodie during the Oct. 28 meeting at the Vancouver Sheraton Hotel. “Why did you not warn us earlier?”

Richmond’s solicitor Tony Capuccinello Iraci said residents in the affected area remain “the registered fee simple owner” of their properties and said the City of Richmond will be opposing the Cowichan decision “as vigorously as possible.”

The province of B.C. and the federal government have both challenged the Cowichan decision. B.C. officials have said it could destabilize the province’s fee simple private property system.

B.C. Attorney General Niki Sharma has said that the province will likely take its challenge up to the Supreme Court of Canada, saying, “aboriginal and fee-simple title cannot co-exist… in their full form, at the same time.”

B.C. Premier David Eby has also stated his opposition to the Cowichan decision, saying it is causing instability and confusion around how aboriginal title claims relate to fee simple private property ownership rights.

Fee simple title, or ownership, is the legal framework allowing complete ownership of a piece of land for use, sale or passing on to heirs.

Mattu told reporters after the meeting that he has been a resident of Richmond since 1975, but was recently informed his mortgage will not be renewed due to the Cowichan decision.

“I bought the place — now I don’t own it. I’m not giving it up,” Mattu said, adding he will be pursuing legal action.

Other residents, such as blueberry farm owner Colin Cai, said the letter earlier this month caused him significant “worries” and added that he hopes the dispute will be “resolved as soon as possible.”

Scope

Cowichan Nation lawyer David Rosenberg has said the Cowichan decision should not be broadly interpreted as threatening fee simple property rights in the province.

The Cowichan Nation, which includes the Cowichan Tribes, said in a recent statement that Eby and the City of Richmond have been causing “unnecessary fears” for private landholders in the affected area. The First Nation said it has no intention of claiming title over any private land in the area affected by the decision.

“To be clear, the Quw’utsun [Cowichan] Nation’s court case regarding their settlement lands at Tl’uqtinus in Richmond has not and does not challenge the effectiveness or validity of any title held by individual private landowners. The ruling does not erase private property,” the first nation wrote in an Oct. 27 press release.

“Richmond and British Columbia’s negative and erroneous messaging is provoking unnecessary fears. Their approach is inconsistent with the Court’s decision and is contrary to reconciliation.”

The First Nation added that recognition of its title to the land is a “historic victory” that recognizes its members’ ancestral fishing and land rights.

The Canadian Press and Olivia Gomm contributed to this report.