From: no_offline_contact@example.com
On 2026-01-07 12:29 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 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.
>
Ah, but which Britons? The Saxons? The Celts? The Neanderthals? The
problem with undoing history is deciding how far to go back.
> 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.
--
Rhino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
