By: admin

admin — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:30:17 +0000

I would have to say that these issues came to a head because of the nature of the British Columbia appellate opinion. The appellate opinion was so restrictive of Aboriginal title, essentially, reducing it to almost a nullity, that the SCC likely felt compelled to intervene and finally articulate the contours of the principle. Does it restrict Government use of native land? Absolutely. Is it an over-expansive decision, negating the ability of either the federal or provincial governments to use Aboriginal land for public benefit? I do not believe so. Actually, considering the nature of the second opinion in Grassy Narrows, it would seem to indicate the path of lesser resistance for the future, namely negotiation with First Nations groups in order to achieve a treaty that would allow for accommodation and consultation. As you know, Laura, natural resource development continues to be a hot topic (pardon the pun from a climate change sense), one in which both the federal and provincial governments continue to press.

By: Laura

Laura — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:10:52 +0000

I’m curious if you have any thoughts as to why this happened, i.e. why in 2014 did the validity of these claims finally sink in and garner a unanimous decision? Do you think it is simply the course of the judicial process, refining and reinterpreting judgments of the past? Or would it be naive to believe that the Canadian government adopting “truth and reconciliation” gave greater context to the issue of Aboriginal title in the Supreme Court? I would personally like to believe that the ruling could indicate a change in thinking, as it is, after all, 2014.

Comments on: Land Use Law: Discussion Regarding Recent Court Decisions on Aboriginal Title

By: admin

By: Laura