Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    rec.arts.tv    |    The boob tube, its history, and past and    |    233,998 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 232,472 of 233,998    |
|    BTR1701 to All    |
|    Canadian Court: "Indigenous" People Have    |
|    07 Jan 26 04:01:43    |
      From: atropos@mac.com              Here's hoping Rhino or Goat don't find themselves out on the street watching       as an Indian tribe takes over their homes...              -------------------------       The British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada       (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490 found that the Cowichan Tribes proved       aboriginal title under the test from Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) and       Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014):              (1) Sufficient Occupation              (2) Continuity              (3) Exclusivity              Effect on Private Property:              This was the first Canadian court decision to declare aboriginal title over       lands including fee simple (private) ownership. The court ruled that Crown       grants and vestings were issued without statutory or constitutional authority       (violating Article 13 of BC's Terms of Union and reserve policies),       constituting unjustifiable infringements on aboriginal title under the Sparrow       and Tsilhqot'in frameworks.              These grants did not extinguish title, as provinces lack jurisdiction to do       so; instead, aboriginal title coexists as a prior, senior right that burdens       fee simple interests.              [In other words, good luck ever selling your house.]              For developed and private lands (about 125 privately held properties in the       claim area): Fee simple titles held by third parties (private owners) remain       valid and indefeasible under the Land Title Act until reconciled through       negotiation or further litigation.              Owners can continue using their property but aboriginal title constrains       incompatible uses (e.g., no new developments without consent or       justification).\              [Gee, thanks, judge for your permission to continue to live in my own house.]              Legal defenses such as limitations periods, laches, and bona fide purchaser       status were rejected by the court, despite being both relevant and legitimate       defenses, in order to "prioritize reconciliation".              [In other words, appeasing the Indians is what's important here so if we have       to ignore the law to keep you white people from prevailing here, that's what       we're going to do.]              Effect on Public Property:              Titles held by Canada (mostly industrial) and the City of Richmond (mostly       undeveloped) were declared defective and invalid, with the ruling suspended       for 18 months to allow transfer back to the Cowichan Tribes (except a 12-acre       airport fuel depot). All lands belonging to the Vancouver Fraser Port       Authority were ceded back to the tribe.              The ruling creates uncertainty for private landowners in Richmond, who may       face clouded titles but not immediate eviction from their homes or loss of       deeds.              Affected homeowners were not formally notified during the trial (a 2017 ruling       by the judge deemed it necessary to avoid hostility), leading to surprise when       the verdict was handed down and a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging       malfeasance by the government.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca