The Law Society of British Columbia warned [12] Feb. 2 that the provincial government's intention to amend the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act [13] (DRIPA) may erode judicial independence and limit access to independent courts. The proposed amendment would limit the role of the judiciary in matters related to DRIPA's implementation.
In the statement, the Law Society reiterated that interpreting legislation is a constitutional function of courts. Although the provincial executive may disagree with the courts' statutory interpretation, the statement urged politicians to be cautious when commenting on judicial decisions. The statement concluded by urging the government to reconsider the proposed amendment of the DRIPA. The Canadian Bar Association issued [23] a similar appeal on Jan. 21.
The statement follows remarks by David Eby, premier of British Columbia, at the provincial Natural Resources Forum [24] on Jan. 20. In his remarks, he accused the courts of creating "real confusion about what DRIPA is about and what reconciliation means in practice." He added that reconciliation—a relationship between the Canadian, provincial and First Nations governments by which shared sovereignty is negotiated—is not for the courts to appropriate. He signaled the government's intention to amend DRIPA to reflect legislative intent and protect private property rights by limiting the role of the courts in reconciliation efforts.
In 2025, the province witnessed two landmark rulings relating to Aboriginal rights and title. The BC Supreme Court held [14] in August that the Cowichan Tribes [15] have established Aboriginal title in the city of Richmond. It follows that the fee simple interests [16]—a freehold interest in land—on the Cowichan Title Lands are unjustified [25] infringements on Aboriginal title and therefore defective. While the court held that Aboriginal title and fee simple interests can coexist on the same piece of land, the government is required to negotiate an arrangement with the Cowichan Tribes over these lands. The court ordered that such arrangements be reached within 18 months.
In December, the BC Court of Appeal held [17] that the provincial mineral tenure system—allowing registration of mineral rights online without notifying or consulting the Gitxaała [18] and Ehattesaht [19] nations—is impermissible under DRIPA, which commits the province to upholding principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [20].
Conservative BC lawmaker Scott McInnis issued a call [26] to repeal DRIPA after the rulings.
Premier Eby rejected outright repeal, stating that DRIPA has allowed development projects to move forward without prolonged litigation. He added that repealing DRIPA would not accelerate such projects or attract investment. He reaffirmed that reconciliation with the First Nations and the recognition of Aboriginal title are the province's constitutional obligations under Article 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 [27], and the unanimous consensus [28] of the provincial legislature in 2019 [29].
First Nations, however, objected to the possible DRIPA amendment. Marilyn Slett, chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, told [30] the CBC that DRIPA, co-developed by the provincial government and First Nations, provides for trust, stability and economic certainty. The BC Assembly of First Nations similarly warned [31] that amending DRIPA and appealing the court rulings could harm the relationship between the First Nations and the government.
From JURIST [32], Feb. 3. Used with permission.
See our last reports on Aboriginal title cases [33] in British Columbia.
Similar mininng laws are also at issue in Saskatchewan [34] and Ontario [35].
