Homeowner Fears

Exploring the myths and the facts about the Cowichan Decision

Photo by Konrad Burdyn on Unsplash

This is our third article in the series on the Cowichan decision, and our attempt to separate fact from fiction, in the rhetoric on this ruling at the Provincial Court in British Columbia, Canada.

Today we turn to the most commonly expressed fear I hear when speaking about Indigenous land rights/land back or even “Aboriginal title”:
Does this mean people will lose their homes?

The short answer from what the judge says in the excerpts: this decision is not written as an eviction order. It is written as a set of legal declarations about title, infringement, and what governments must do next.

Also, the Cowichan, and even the Musqueaum (who are contesting this ruling) are very clear that their issue is not with home owners, but with the idea of underlying title, which the government has claimed for itself.

Important Background Information: Crown Land

We will further unpack the court’s decision below, focused particularly on this question of implications for private land ownership, but first it is critical to understand they dynamics of land ownership in British Columbia. According to the Ministry of Forests, Land’s and Natural Resources:

• 94% of the land in British Columbia is provincial Crown land.

• 1% is Federal Crown land which includes Indian reserve land, defence lands, airports and federal harbours.

• 5% of land in British Columbia is privately owned.

It is important to be clear as to what we are talking about here. This court decision is about Provincial and federal crown land.

Here’s what the court did (and did not) say.

What the court did say clearly

The judge declared that Cowichan descendants have Aboriginal title to the Cowichan Title Lands — a portion of the Tl’uqtinus area based on the Douglas Treaty.

The judge also declared that certain past government actions — like Crown grants of fee simple interests and certain highway-related vesting to Richmond — unjustifiably infringed upon that Aboriginal title.

The judge declared that specific fee simple titles and interests held by:

• The federal government and provincial government of British Columbia, and

• the municipality of Richmond (Lot E and Lot K)
  are defective and invalid.

So yes: the decision is serious, and it has real consequences for governments and public bodies, but no one is displacing people from their homes. The consequences do concern who profits from these lands.

What is supposed to happen next: negotiation

The judge repeatedly points toward negotiation and reconciliation as the way forward. Now, many Indigenous folks have declared that “reconciliation is dead” specifically because of lack of meaningful action. This is an opportunity for meaningful, substantive action.

In the declarations, the judge states that:

• Canada owes a duty to negotiate in good faith to reconcile its interests in the YVR Fuel Project lands with Cowichan title, and

• BC owes a duty to negotiate in good faith to reconcile third-party fee simple interests and highway-related vesting with Cowichan title.

In the conclusion, the judge says plainly:
“Much remains to be resolved through negotiation and reconciliation between the Crown and the Cowichan.”

Why this matters for neighbours and homeowners

This isn’t a decision written to stir panic. It is a decision that:

• recognizes Cowichan title to a defined area, and

• directs governments toward good-faith negotiation to resolve what comes next.

In this decision, the court clarified rights and responsibilities, not ownership— and then pushed the parties back toward negotiation.

Photo by Hartono Creative Studio on Unsplash

📌 MYTHS vs FACTS

MYTHS vs FACTS — Homeowner Fears

Myth: This decision is an eviction order.
Fact: In the excerpts provided, the judge issues declarations about title and negotiation duties, and emphasizes that much remains to be resolved through negotiation and reconciliation.

Myth: The judge said private homeowners’ titles are automatically invalid.
Fact: The “defective and invalid” declaration applies to specific titles held by the federal government (Crown land) and the City of Richmond (in the lots listed by the judge).

Myth: Nothing is secure anymore.
Fact: The judge identifies a defined title area (Cowichan Title Lands) and points to a structured next step: good-faith negotiation.

Myth: This ruling is a result of the province of British Columbia embraced the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIPA), which emboldened Indigenous People to assert their rights further (an undermines the property rights of non-Indigenous people).
Fact: This ruling did not in reference DRIPA at all. The judge made a constitutional declaration under s. 35(1), including title, findings of infringement, and duties to negotiate. For more on Section 35 see my previous article on the Constitution and Indigenous rights.

The Series Continues?

Initially, this was to be the last of this series, but I have decided to write two more articles. One, just for fun, is a little historical jaunt into the rarely discussed Douglas treaties, which the judge references in her decision on Cowichan. The final article, then, will be on how you can engage in conversation and action around this decision. In the interest of repair, I want to suggest some ways that Settler/non-Indigenous folks can help drain the fear from this conversation and can participate in speaking to the possibilities of this moment. Stay tuned! Drop me a note in the comments if you have other questions or concerns you would like me to address before the end of this series.

Thanks for being here!