The British Columbia Supreme Court’s August decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General) recognized aboriginal title for several Cowichan-descendant nations on portions of Lulu Island in Richmond, marking a historic legal milestone, but also triggering widespread misunderstanding about what the ruling actually does.
After a 513-day trial – the longest in Canadian history – the court affirmed aboriginal title to roughly 732 to 800 acres on the island’s south shore, about half of what the plaintiffs claimed. The recognized area includes the historic Cowichan summer village of Tl’uqtinus and surrounding resource lands, long used for fishing and gathering.
The judgment did not nullify private property rights. Private owners were never parties to the case, and their fee-simple titles remain valid unless separately challenged. The court’s declaration of invalid Crown and City of Richmond titles was suspended for 18 months to allow for negotiation. Private landholders do not need Cowichan permission to sell or modify property, and no one is being forced from their homes, as has been written about by various media.
The ruling has still caused ripple effects in the housing and lending markets. Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie sent warning letters to some 150–300 affected owners, citing uncertainty about future ownership status. Banks and insurers have since denied some new loans and development projects in the area, though existing mortgages remain intact.
Appeals are underway from the governments of British Columbia and Canada, the City of Richmond, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, and nearby First Nations, while the Cowichan are cross-appealing to extend their title to the full 1,846 acres. British Columbia government has also sought a stay to delay enforcement pending clarification.
A related wave of misinformation has compounded public anxiety. A fake letter purporting to come from the City of North Vancouver warned of property seizures by “three tribes,” but officials and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation have confirmed it was fraudulent. Meanwhile, media posts and opinion blogs have mistakenly claimed homeowners must now seek tribal “blessing” to sell property or that the ruling signals a foreign “land grab.”
In reality, the court’s decision preserves existing private rights. But there are vast lands in British Columbia that this ruling could affect — 95% of the lands of British Columbia are considered technically unceded, with no treaties or surrendering titles, and those lands could now be claimed by the tribes.
Negotiations and appeals will determine how aboriginal title and current land ownership coexist.

What does this have to do with Alaska ? Or is this intended to stir up more anti-indigenous responses from the mob ?
JH – I presume these questions are rhetorical and hostile in nature, therefore I’ll pass on answering them and allow your questions to speak for themselves. Thanks for writing. – sd
Yes, indeed, those questions do speak for themselves.
Horton heard a who.
DJT living rent free between his ears.
Alaskans might want to completely // thoroughly research the Judges on future ballots.
By electing ‘whacko’ Judges with ‘unhinged’ agendas, things like this easily happen.
Logic would have the inter related Native tribes considering the potential of instigating similar thoughts of acquisition of Alaska lands beyond that of current legislative allowed in the Anica rulings.
Like one’s home or current local public areas assumed owned at current laws and statues
Cheers
wut?
Canadian Natives were NOT “first”, merely the LAST, natives to occupy any given lands prior to European contact, and they were NEVER “nations”. I always hoot at hyper-PC Canadian linguistic stalinism, and their pandering to anyone or anything that is in opposition to Western civilization.
Mrs Jefferson, sorry to bother you, but could you please provide your anthropological credentials to back up your statement?Gunalcheesh.
I would like to see a First Nation’s title to a legally described real property. I haven’t seen one yet.