From: ahk@chinet.com
BTR1701 wrote:
>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):
Cool. For our next trick, Great Britain goes back to the Britons and
France to the Gauls.
Land title was a fiction from English law. There was no native title to
extinguish because they had no land tenure system.
>(1) Sufficient Occupation
>(2) Continuity
>(3) Exclusivity
How many centuries of taxes did they forget to pay? That's the duty of
the land owner. Fork it over.
>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.]
I've never heard of a senior right burden on fee simple. The banks will
have to foreclose on the Indians.
>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.
Ah. There is no justice, just endless work for lawyers.
Can the Indians now be sued for land and water pollution and other
nuisances?
>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".
It's moviePig law!
>[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.
Wow. The artificial land too that the Indians had the technology to
build?
>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)
|
