Carney pushes back on BC Aboriginal title ruling as Conservatives launch property rights task force
Share
Prime Minister Mark Carney told the House of Commons on Wednesday that he “fundamentally disagrees” with last summer’s BC Supreme Court decision granting the Cowichan Tribes Aboriginal title to between 300 and 324 hectares of land in Richmond, BC. “We immediately appealed that decision alongside the government of BC, the City of Richmond and other First Nations,” Carney said, adding that he would “always advance viable legal arguments to protect private property.”
The case has become a political flashpoint. The Cowichan ruling and the federal government’s February 20 agreement with the Musqueam Indian Band have raised concerns among BC property owners about whether fee simple private ownership still holds priority over Aboriginal title claims. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is pressing Carney to adopt a more aggressive legal strategy, specifically calling on him to reverse a 2018 litigation directive that discourages federal lawyers from arguing that the creation of private land permanently eliminates Aboriginal title — the so-called “extinguishment” argument.
Question
Can the federal government still introduce the extinguishment argument at the Court of Appeal stage, given that it abandoned that position years ago? Tako van Popta, the Conservative MP leading the new property rights task force and a former real estate and land development lawyer, says it may already be too late in the appeals process to change legal strategy. The Liberals opted not to argue extinguishment at trial, and procedural rules may limit what new arguments can be raised on appeal.
Editor's Comment
For Metro Vancouver homeowners and investors, the practical takeaway here is less about the political sparring and more about legal uncertainty risk. A BC Supreme Court finding of Aboriginal title over a large Richmond area—paired with an active appeal where key arguments may be procedurally constrained—creates headline-driven anxiety even if day-to-day fee simple transactions continue as normal. If the appeal turns on whether “extinguishment” can be advanced when it wasn’t argued at trial, that’s a reminder that outcomes may hinge on litigation strategy as much as merits. Until the Court of Appeal clarifies the precedent, expect heightened sensitivity around properties near historically contested areas, more questions from lenders/insurers, and a premium on clean due diligence—title review, survey/encroachment clarity, and counsel input for larger land assemblies or development sites. For the broader market, this is unlikely to move typical resale pricing in the near term, but it can affect confidence and timelines on development and infrastructure-adjacent land where perceived legal risk translates into slower decision-making and wider bid-ask spreads.