Canada: B.C. Court Requires Site-Specific Proof For Aboriginal Title

The British Columbia Court of Appeal (the Court) recently released its long-awaited decision in William v. British Columbia (also known as the Tsilhqot'in Nation case), which has significant implications for proving aboriginal title and rights in British Columbia. A key issue in dispute between Canada, British Columbia (together, the defendants) and Chief Roger William (on behalf of the Tsilhqot'in Nation, the plaintiff) revolved around the degree of land occupation required to demonstrate aboriginal title, that is, how extensive and how intense that occupation must be.

In its reasons, the Court emphasized that aboriginal title must be demonstrated on a site-specific basis and cannot be claimed on a broad territorial basis. While this narrows the scope of aboriginal title, the Court also stressed that aboriginal title can be combined with specific aboriginal rights to give First Nations use of broader land and resource areas to protect their cultural security and continuity.

The Tsilhqot'in Nation has already indicated an intention to seek leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC). Given the significance of this case for aboriginal rights and title claims, we anticipate that the SCC will hear the appeal. Any final SCC decision may not be delivered before 2014.

This bulletin summarizes the key aspects of the Court's decision and its potential implications for businesses operating, investing or otherwise interested in aboriginal territory.


The case was initially brought by Chief Roger William of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nation, on its behalf and on behalf of the members of the Tsilhqot'in Nation (of which the Xeni Gwet'in is a part) in response to proposed logging that British Columbia had authorized. The logging was to occur within a portion of the "Claim Area": 4,380 square kilometres that the Tsilhqot'in claim as part of their traditional territory in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region of British Columbia. William sought declarations that: the Tsilhqot'in Nation holds aboriginal title to the Claim Area; the Xeni Gwet'in had aboriginal rights to hunt and trap in the Claim Area; and such aboriginal title and rights had been infringed by the forestry permits.

The trial took 339 trial days between 2002 and 2007, resulting in a 458-page trial decision. In the trial decision, Justice Vickers dismissed the claim for a declaration of aboriginal title without prejudice to the Tsilhqot'in's ability to make new claims of aboriginal title within the Claim Area. Justice Vickers held that he could not make a final declaration of aboriginal title because the case had been brought as an "all or nothing claim" and there was insufficient evidence of aboriginal title over the whole Claim Area. Nonetheless, given the volume of evidence and the impracticality of redoing the trial, he took the unusual step of issuing a non-binding "opinion" that the Tsilhqot'in had demonstrated aboriginal title over approximately 40% of the Claim Area.

The judge also held that the Tsilhqot'in have aboriginal rights to hunt and trap, to trade in skins and pelts taken from the Claim Area "as a means of securing a moderate livelihood" and to capture and use horses. Finally, the judge declared that the forestry activities in the Claim Area unjustifiably infringed Tsilhqot'in aboriginal rights. For more information on the trial decision, see our Blakes Bulletin: The Tsilhqot'in Nation Decision on Aboriginal Title and Right.

William, Canada and British Columbia each appealed aspects of the trial decision.

Aboriginal Title

The Court considered two key issues regarding aboriginal title: whether the claim was "all or nothing" and whether aboriginal title is territorial or site-specific in nature.

All or Nothing Claim

The Court held that the plaintiff's claim was sufficiently drafted to allow the trial judge to find, if he had wanted to, that aboriginal title had been proven in respect of only part of the Claim Area (in other words, William did not need to prove aboriginal title to the entire Claim Area). Flexibility in granting a declaration is particularly important in an aboriginal title claim because the boundaries of some First Nations traditional territory were not static, especially for semi-nomadic peoples such as the Tsilhqot'in. However, despite this finding on the pleadings, the Court did not uphold the opinion on aboriginal title.

Territorial vs. Site-Specific

The trial judge accepted the plaintiff's "territorial theory" of aboriginal title, whereby the necessary degree of occupation could be established by showing that the Tsilhqot'in moved throughout the territory. Because the Tsilhqot'in were semi-nomadic, William argued that aboriginal title was proven by the existence of village sites occupied for parts of each year in addition to hunting grounds, cultivated fields and fishing sites. The Court overturned the trial decision, and held that aboriginal title must be demonstrated on a site-specific basis – meaning a "definite tract of land actually occupied by the Tsilhqot'in" at the time of sovereignty. The Court noted that, with a few exceptions, there are no sites that were habitually occupied by the Tsilhqot'in. The Court rejected territorial claims "as antithetical to the goal of reconciliation, which demands that, so far as possible, the traditional rights of First Nations be fully respected without placing unnecessary limitations on the sovereignty of the Crown or on the aspirations of all Canadians, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal." It appears that the Court wanted to ensure that aboriginal title would not create an unworkable barrier to resource development.

The Court noted that it is "not convinced that the relationship of the Tsilhqot'in people to the land requires recognition of title on a territorial basis; it does, however, require the Court to affirm the existence of Aboriginal rights that respect the Tsilhqot'in perspective on its own culture and values." In rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the site-specific argument represents a "postage-stamp" approach that would only protect small and unconnected patches of land, the Court held that title is not the only tool available to provide cultural security to the Tsilhqot'in. Rather, various aboriginal rights protect cultural security and safeguard the ability of First Nations to continue to engage in traditional lifestyles:

"Aboriginal title, while forming part of the picture, is not the only – or even necessarily the dominant – part. Canadian law provides a robust framework for recognition of Aboriginal rights. The cultural security and continuity of First Nations can be preserved by recognizing their title to particular "definite tracts of land", and by acknowledging that they hold other Aboriginal rights in much more extensive territories.

The result for semi-nomadic First Nations like the Tsilhqot'in is not a patchwork of unconnected "postage stamp" areas of title, but rather a network of specific sites over which title can be proven, connected by broad areas in which various identifiable Aboriginal rights can be exercised. This is entirely consistent with their traditional culture and with the objectives of s. 35."

The Court acknowledged that there are specific sites within the Claim Area that may be significant for the Tsilhqot'in and concluded that the Tsilhqot'in are free to pursue new aboriginal title claims to these specific tracts of land.

Aboriginal Rights

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the Tsilhqot'in people have an aboriginal right to hunt and trap birds and animals throughout the Claim Area for certain purposes (including securing animals for work, transportation, food and clothing) as well as for spiritual, ceremonial and cultural uses. This right includes the right to capture and use horses for transportation and work and to trade in skins and pelts taken from the Claim Area as a means of securing a moderate livelihood. The Court noted that while aboriginal rights must be based on traditional practices, customs or traditions that pre-dated European contact, the fact that horses had at some point been introduced to North America by Europeans did not prevent the capture and use of horses from being an aboriginal right. Further, there was no indication that the Tsilhqot'in learned to capture or use horses from Europeans.

British Columbia appealed the trial judge's conclusion that logging would interfere with aboriginal rights to hunt and trap, arguing that he did not apply the appropriate burden of proof on the plaintiff to show infringement of such rights. The Court rejected this argument, holding aboriginal rights are infringed if government action interferes with the rights "in more than an insignificant or trivial way." This was consistent with the Court's ruling that "Aboriginal rights short of title are the primary means by which the traditional cultures and activities of First Nations (and particularly those that are nomadic or semi-nomadic) are protected".

The trial judge held that forestry activities proposed for the Claim Area would result in a loss of habitat and reduce the number of species and their abundance. Since the weighing of evidence in reaching this conclusion was a matter for the trial judge, and declaratory relief is discretionary, the Court refused to interfere with the trial judge's decision that this was an infringement. Despite this, the Court cautioned that the trial judge's "high-level" approach to infringement is unlikely to be an appropriate template for future cases and should not be seen as authority for the view that any industrial activity that affects species diversity or abundance of wildlife will necessarily be harmful to an aboriginal right to hunt or trap. Lastly, on the rights analysis, the Court concluded that the trial judge was right to find that this infringement was not justifiable because British Columbia did not establish that there was a valid governmental objective for logging in the Claim Area.

Holder of Aboriginal Rights

British Columbia argued on appeal that the Xeni Gwet'in (as an Indian Band), rather than the Tsilhqot'in Nation, should be viewed as the aboriginal rights holder since it has a well-defined membership and a clear political structure. This ensures that individuals entitled to exercise aboriginal rights are identified and allows government to engage in proper consultation concerning those rights. By contrast, the Tsilhqot'in Nation has no governing or decision-making body and no established power structure by which it can designate people who are authorized to speak on behalf of the collective. The duty to consult is difficult to fulfill in such circumstances.

The Court agreed with the trial judge that the proper rights holder is a matter to be determined primarily from the aboriginal perspective. The evidence at trial established that the holders of aboriginal rights within the Claim Area have traditionally defined themselves as the collective of all the Tsilhqot'in, with the Xeni Gwet'in as the custodian and party that administers and protects such rights on behalf of the Nation. As such, the Tsilhqot'in Nation is the proper rights holder. The Court expressed sympathy for the practical problems faced by the Crown, holding that it will "be necessary for First Nations, governments and the courts to wrestle with the problem of who properly represents rights holders in particular cases."


The trial decision contained a long commentary on reconciliation, encouraging the parties to work together to reach a mutually satisfactory solution that balances aboriginal rights and the interests of broader society. The Court continued this theme, commenting on the difficulties faced by First Nations and governments in attempting to settle cases like this, particularly when the law remains uncertain and subject to ongoing incremental change. This difficulty is also faced by businesses seeking to develop, finance or purchase projects in aboriginal territory, which must weigh the potential impact of aboriginal claims on the viability of the project.

This decision validates the negotiation of modern treaties and agreements, such as the Tsilhqot'in Framework Agreement signed by the Tsilhqot'in Nation and the Province in 2009 following the trial, as a viable tool for resolving outstanding aboriginal claims in British Columbia. However, in light of delays at many treaty negotiation tables, the uncertainty of aboriginal title claims may not be resolved in the near future through treaty-making. Localized agreements concerning narrower issues are more likely to be concluded.

This case dealt very briefly with the duty to consult and accommodate. In short, the Court noted that it was not necessary to evaluate the consultations in this case given the fact that the trial judge's ruling as to an infringement of proven rights was upheld. In our view, the Court's analysis will not significantly alter the current approach by the Crown or businesses relating to the duty to consult. The resonating theme in this judgment of the need to negotiate reconciliation in a context that fully respects the aboriginal perspective to cultural security and continuity aligns with the principles of the current duty to consult case law.

Finally, this decision dramatically narrows the scope of aboriginal title by requiring site-specific proof rather than validating broad-based territorial claims. The implication is that significantly smaller tracts of land are likely subject to aboriginal title claims given the high threshold First Nations must meet to prove aboriginal title. This reduction in the scope of aboriginal title is balanced by the Court's emphasis on the use of aboriginal rights to protect aboriginal culture where aboriginal title cannot be proven.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
27 Oct 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Please join members of the Blakes Commercial Real Estate group as they discuss five key provisions of a commercial real estate purchase agreement that are often the subject of much negotiation but are sometimes misunderstood.

1 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

What is the emotional culture of your organization?

Every organization and workplace has an emotional culture that can have an impact on everything from employee performance to customer or client satisfaction.

3 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Join leading lawyers from the Blakes Pensions, Benefits & Executive Compensation group as they discuss recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits law as well as strategies to identify and minimize common risks.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.