- within Compliance and Tax topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
- with readers working within the Healthcare and Law Firm industries
On December 5, 2025, the British Columbia Court of Appeal released its decision in Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430. This decision further moves the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) from principle to practice. It specifically confirms that UNDRIP, through BC's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), now actively shapes how all BC laws are to be read and applied, and that courts can declare provincial regimes inconsistent with UNDRIP.
Redefining UNDRIP's role in BC law
The dispute arose from an earlier version of BC's mineral tenure system, which at the time allowed automatic online registration of mineral claims without prior consultation. The BC Supreme Court found this breached the Crown's duty to consult under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and suspended its declaration to give the province time to redesign the regime.
The chambers judge treated UNDRIP as non-binding, stating DRIPA section 3 was not justiciable, and declining to adjudicate the question of inconsistency with UNDRIP.
The BC Court of Appeal rejected this narrow view. The majority held that DRIPA "incorporates UNDRIP into the positive law of British Columbia with immediate legal effect."1 This does not create new private causes of action, but it makes UNDRIP a mandatory interpretive lens for BC laws and sets benchmarks for how those laws should align with Indigenous rights. Some UNDRIP articles reflect binding international norms, while others set minimum standards or aspirational goals.
Regardless, the Court in Gitxaala highlighted that decision-makers must engage with specific articles and calibrate the level of conformity accordingly.
Applying that framework, the Court declared that automatic mineral claim registration without prior consultation is inconsistent with UNDRIP article 32(2), which requires consultation and cooperation "in order to obtain free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project" affecting Indigenous lands and resources.2
Key takeaways
At its core, the ruling delivers three key insights that redefine the role of UNDRIP in provincial decision-making:
1. The Interpretation Act now presumes UNDRIP consistency
BC's 2021 amendment to the Interpretation Act added section 8.1(3) "[e]very Act and regulation must be construed as being consistent with the Declaration."3 The Court stipulated that this is more than a "tie-breaker" in the presence of ambiguity where two interpretations are possible. Instead, this section acts as an interpretive aid which infuses the entire interpretive process and creates a rebuttable presumption that BC laws should be read in harmony with UNDRIP unless the Legislature clearly says otherwise.
Consequently, decision-makers must now engage directly with relevant UNDRIP articles when interpreting statutes and regulations.
2. The Crown has enforceable obligations to align laws with UNDRIP
Beyond interpretation, DRIPA also creates operational obligations. Section 3 of DRIPA requires the government to consult and cooperate with Indigenous peoples and to take "all measures necessary" to align provincial laws with UNDRIP.4 These duties are enforceable and trackable through related obligations to prepare an action plan and report annually to the Legislature.
The Court also noted that "UNDRIP can and should inform the interpretation of the common law duty to consult that arises with provincial decision-making and conduct."5 This means that standards like free, prior, and informed consent are likely to increasingly shape consultation processes.
3. Courts can determine whether laws are consistent with UNDRIP
The majority also confirmed that whether a law is consistent with UNDRIP is a legal question courts can adjudicate. The Court confirmed its authority to issue declaratory relief where inconsistency exists and did so here by striking down automatic mineral claim registration.
In dissent, Justice Riley agreed that DRIPA incorporates UNDRIP but argued that courts should not adjudicate inconsistency article-by-article However, the majority held that judicial oversight is essential to ensure accountability and enforceability.
Looking ahead
Gitxaala signals a structural shift in BC's legal framework—one that will reverberate beyond mineral tenure and likely change how decisions are made. By embedding UNDRIP into positive law and affirming its substantive role in statutory interpretation, the Court has set a trajectory toward deeper integration of Indigenous rights into provincial governance, while confirming that obligations under DRIPA are enforceable.
In short, albeit subject to any statutory amendments BC makes to DRIPA (as Premier Eby has recently publicly alluded to),6 the way laws are applied and projects are approved in BC may very well look quite different going forward. Regardless of how this ultimately takes shape, consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples will continue to be a central issue to regulatory and policy decisions, and legislative drafting will need to reflect UNDRIP standards.
Future disputes may test the boundaries of this interpretive mandate, clarify the scope of DRIPA's obligations, and shape how principles such as free, prior, and informed consent operate in practice. However, the forward-looking message is clear: UNDRIP is not a peripheral consideration; it is a cornerstone of BC law, shaping interpretation, obligations, and the future of governance.
Footnotes
1. Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430 at para 7 [Gitxaala].
2. Ibid at paras 68-70.
3. Interpretation Act, RSBC 1996, c 238 at section 8.1(3).
4. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SBC 2019, c 44 at section 3.
5. Gitxaala, supra note 1 at para 163.
6. Andrew Kurjata, Eby says B.C. may revise DRIPA legislation, worries court is 'in driver's seat' (5 December 2025), CBC News British Columbia; Amy Judd, Amendments or repeal of DRIPA would have negative impact on reconciliation: B.C. chief (9 December 2025), Global News.
Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com
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.
