Tsilhqot\u2019in Nation v. British Columbia [2014] SCC 44
\nSupreme Court of Canada<\/p>\n
The Tsilhqot\u2019in Nation challenged a provincial decision to grant a commercial logging license on land considered by the Tsilhqot\u2019in to be part of their traditional territory. The Tsilhqot\u2019in filed a claim to their territory. <\/p>\n
The Supreme Court of Canada held that Aboriginal title flows from \u201csufficient occupation\u201d namely, sufficient and continuous use of the land, together with exclusive occupation. In making that determination, courts must apply a \u201cculturally sensitive approach\u201d to sufficiency of occupation \u201cbased on the dual perspectives of the Aboriginal group in question \u2014 its laws, practices, size, technological ability and the character of the land claimed \u2014 and the common law notion of possession as a basis for title.\u201d Para. 41. Moreover, with respect to occupation of land, the analysis is no longer limited to specific sites of settlement but now extends to land regularly used for hunting, fishing, gathering or for exploitation of natural resources over which the First Nation exercised control at the time of the assertion of European sovereignty in respect of the land in question.<\/p>\n
Governments and third parties seeking to use the land must obtain the consent of the First Nations title holders. If title holders do not consent, the government may take action forcing the proposed land use provided the use is justified under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. <\/p>\n
To justify overriding a First Nation\u2019s decision concerning aboriginal titled land, the government must show that: (1) it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate with the First Nation; (2) its actions are backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and (3) the governmental action is consistent with the Crown\u2019s fiduciary obligation. Para. 77. Infringements on Aboriginal title cannot be justified if they would substantially deprive future generations of the benefit of the land. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Tsilhqot\u2019in Nation v. British Columbia [2014] SCC 44 Supreme Court of Canada The Tsilhqot\u2019in Nation challenged a provincial decision to grant a commercial logging license on land considered by the Tsilhqot\u2019in to be part of their traditional territory. The Tsilhqot\u2019in filed a claim to their territory. The Supreme Court of Canada held that Aboriginal title […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","resource-topic":[75,83],"resource-type":[528],"resource-category":[30097],"content-for-websites":[30103],"region":[638,539],"class_list":["post-12318","resource","type-resource","status-publish","hentry","resource-topic-indigenous-peoples","resource-topic-land-rights","resource-type-cases","resource-category-legal","content-for-websites-notable-cases","region-canada","region-north-america"],"blocksy_meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource\/12318","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/resource"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12318"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12318"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"resource-topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-topic?post=12318"},{"taxonomy":"resource-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-type?post=12318"},{"taxonomy":"resource-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource-category?post=12318"},{"taxonomy":"content-for-websites","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/content-for-websites?post=12318"},{"taxonomy":"region","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elaw.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/region?post=12318"}],"curies":[{"name":"gracias","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}