Canada: SCC Ruling On Aboriginal Title: Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 And Significant Changes To The Legal Landscape

Last Updated: July 4 2014
Article by Sarah Hansen and Kennedy Bear Robe

On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") released its landmark decision in Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia.  At the heart of this decision, the SCC was confronted with the question of Aboriginal title and what constitutes a justifiable incursion on such title.  For the first time, the SCC made a declaration of Aboriginal title over a large tract of land claimed by the Tsilhqot'in Nation located in the Chilcotin region of the west central interior of British Columbia.  The SCC pronounced that once Aboriginal title has been established, development of Aboriginal title lands by the Crown or third-parties can only proceed either by: (i) obtaining First Nation consent; or (ii) the Crown demonstrating that it has discharged its duty to consult and accommodate and justifying its infringement on title under the Sparrow framework.

The Tsilhqot'in Nation is a semi-nomadic grouping of six bands sharing common culture and history with the Tsilhqot'in Nation's territory.  The dispute concerning Tsilhqot'in title to this area has a long history dating back to 1989 when the Province of British Columbia granted a company a right to commercial logging activities in Tsilhqot'in territory.  Thereafter, the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations government (one of the six bands that make up the Tsilhqot'in Nation) objected and sought a declaration prohibiting this activity within Tsilhqot'in territory.

The trial started in 2002 and spanned over 5 years with approximately 339 days spent in court prior to a decision being released in 2007 (2007 BCSC 1700).  In the end, Mr. Justice Vickers' decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court fell short of a declaration of Aboriginal title due to a pleadings technicality.  However, he stated in his judgment that the Tsilhqot'in Nation was entitled to a declaration of Aboriginal title for a portion of the claim.  On appeal at the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Groberman incorrectly applied a test of Aboriginal title premised on "small spots" or site-specific occupation, which led him to hold that the Tsilhqot'in claim to title had not been established (2012 BCCA 285).

The Tsilhqot'in Nation appealed to the SCC.

SCC Decision

The SCC found in favour of the Tsilhqot'in Nation on the issue of Aboriginal title.

In overturning the decision of the BCCA, which sought to apply the site-specific occupation test of Aboriginal title, the SCC clarified the Delgamuukw test and concluded that the following three requirements must be present to establish Aboriginal title:

 i. sufficient pre-sovereignty occupation;

 ii. continuous occupation (where present occupation is relied on); and

 iii. exclusive historic occupation.

The Aboriginal claimant has the onus of establishing Aboriginal title by satisfying these three requirements.  The SCC warned against approaching the above analysis strictly through the application of common law concepts.  Instead, both the Aboriginal and common law perspectives must be given equal weight in such analysis.  The SCC affirmed that Aboriginal title "extends to tracts of land that were regularly used for hunting, fishing or otherwise exploiting resources and over which the group exercised effective control at the time of assertion of European sovereignty."  In doing so, the SCC rejected the BCCA's theory of a "network of specific sites over which title can be proven." 

 i.  What Constitutes Sufficient Occupation?

On the question of the first requirement, the SCC held:

To sufficiently occupy the land for purposes of title, the Aboriginal group in question must show that it has historically acted in a way that would communicate to third parties that it held the land for its own purpose.  This standard does not demand notorious or visible use akin to proving a claim for adverse possession, but neither can the occupation be purely subjective or internal.  There must be evidence of a strong presence on or over the land claimed, manifesting itself in acts of occupation that could reasonably be interpreted as demonstrating that the land in question belonged to, was controlled by, or was under the exclusive stewardship of the claimant group.

The question of sufficient occupation will always depend on the Aboriginal peoples' way of life and laws, including those who were nomadic or semi-nomadic.  This is the "culturally sensitive" approach, which takes into consideration the First Nations' laws, world views, practices, size, technological ability, the character of the land being claimed and any other applicable indicia of occupation.

 ii.  Continuity of Occupation

An Aboriginal claimant must provide evidence of occupation prior to assertions of Crown sovereignty.  If present occupation is relied on, then the requirement of continuity between present and pre-sovereignty occupation arises.  Simply put, the occupation must be rooted in pre-sovereignty times. 

 iii.  Exclusivity of Occupation

Lastly, the Aboriginal claimant must establish exclusive occupation of the land at the time of the Crown's assertion of sovereignty.  Again, this inquiry requires an understanding of both the First Nations' and the common law notion of exclusivity.  Additionally, the "culturally sensitive approach" must be applied in such a manner so as to consider the specific context and characteristics of the Aboriginal peoples' way of life and legal orders. 

Once Aboriginal title has been established by fulfilling these three criteria, infringement must be justified assuming consent has not been given.  The SCC clarified the justification analysis, as set out in Sparrow, by stating:

[t]o justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group's wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show: (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate, (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown's fiduciary obligation to the group.

Notwithstanding the above justification analysis, the SCC held that the "Crown must seek the consent of the title-holding Aboriginal group to developments of the land," prior to initiating its justification analysis.

In summary, Aboriginal title confers a cognizable legal right to the land itself.  As "the Crown does not retain a beneficial interest in Aboriginal title land," it must justify incursions on title and cannot deprive future title holders the "right to the benefits associated with the land – to use it, enjoy it and profit from its economic development."  Additionally, Aboriginal title includes the following bundle of rights: "the right to decide how the land will be used; the right of enjoyment and occupancy of the land; the right to possess the land; the right to the economic benefits of the land; and the right to pro-actively use and manage the land."

Ultimately, the SCC upheld the trial judge's decision that the Tsilhqot'in had established Aboriginal title to the claim area at issue.  The appeal was allowed and a declaration of Aboriginal title over the area was made.  Additionally, the SCC concluded that the honour of the Crown was not upheld as British Columbia failed to consult and accommodate the Tsilhqot'in Nation in respect of provincial-authorized forestry activities within Tsilhqot'in territory pending resolution of Tsilhqot'in's land claim.

In light of the above conclusions, a consideration of the relationship between provincial laws and Aboriginal title was not necessary for the disposition of the case.  Nonetheless, the SCC concluded that provincial laws of general application apply to Tsilhqot'in's title lands subject to the following constitutional constraints: (i) s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and (ii) s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.  Additionally, the SCC considered the concurrent issues of whether or not the Province of British Columbia can legislate in respect of Aboriginal rights, including title and whether Aboriginal rights, including title, fall at the core of federal regulatory jurisdiction under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.  The SCC held that the doctrine of inter-jurisdictional immunity did not apply as "s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 imposes limits on how both the federal and provincial governments can deal with land under Aboriginal title."  Therefore, neither level of government is allowed to legislate in a way that interferes with Aboriginal rights, including title without satisfying the requirement of proving that such incursions are justified on a "compelling and substantial" standard.

Moving Forward

As a result of this decision, the Court has warned against Crown and third party activities that proceed on a basis inconsistent with the honour of the Crown.  The SCC exemplified this point by stating that "if the Crown begins a project without consent prior to Aboriginal title being established, it may be required to cancel the project upon establishment of the title if continuation of the project would be unjustifiably infringing."  This statement indicates that Crown and third parties should pre-emptively seek a collaborative framework directly with First Nations for meaningful dialogue on all high-level decisions, management and use of the lands and resources within First Nations' territory. 

Government-to-Government Negotiations

First Nations and the Province of British Columbia may seek to advance a framework for meaningful discussions in respect of land use planning, management, tenuring and revenue sharing.  These four areas have been identified as mutually important objectives, pursuant to "The New Relationship" vision statement.  In addition, government-to-government discussions may include a process which will seek to harmonize the jurisdictional interplay between federal, provincial and Aboriginal title and laws over specific lands.  By choosing to adopt and implement a collaborative framework, the parties will advance the concurrent objectives of recognition and reconciliation.  We are confident that moving forward on this basis will be seen as an opportunity to ensure that First Nations' can exercise their "right to proactively use and manage the land" and that the honour of the Crown is upheld.

Third Party Negotiations

The Crown may only delegate procedural elements of consultation to third parties seeking to develop resource and energy projects and related infrastructure within First Nations' territory.  Nevertheless, companies would be well advised to seek a framework for meaningful discussions.  Such discussions may be used as a way to ensuring that project impacts on Aboriginal rights including title are avoided, minimized, mitigated and accommodated.  In some instances, these discussions may lead to a position whereby the parties may be able to contractually deal with concerns regarding specific impacts to Aboriginal rights, including title.  Given the strong statements in this decision, we are confident that third parties will be motivated to advance a collaborative approach with First Nations.

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.

Sarah Hansen
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions