Does this court ruling throw everyone's property in BC and Canada into question?

[blackbird]

"Tasha Kheiriddin: Cowichan decision exposes toxic 'colonizer' narratives"

"This week, over 100 homeowners in Richmond, B.C., got a notice no one wants to receive: Mayor Malcolm Brodie warned that due to a recent court decision, the title to their homes may be worthless."

Tasha Kheiriddin: Cowichan decision exposes toxic 'colonizer' narratives

How could one judge make such a ruling that throws over 100 homeowners actual ownership of their homes and lands into question?

I do not understand how any judge could make this kind of ruling and cause unnecessary pain and turmoil on so many people.  It is beyond belief.

Edited October 22, 2025 by blackbird

[I am Groot]

For those with no real knowledge of the case, it can be best summed up thusly:

The Cowichan lived and still live on Vancouver Island. In the summer, they'd come over the strait and set up a fishing camp and pick berries. They mostly stopped that after trading posts were set up on Vancouver Island by the Hudson Bay Company. Decades later, the area was taken over by the British. Eventually, surveyors checked over the area. There was no sign of the natives. Titles were sold off to various people, and that was that until 2014, when the Cowichan suddenly said that was their land and they wanted it back (or a really big payout). The land is worth about $100 billion.

To list the many ways in which the trial judge showed open bias and favoritism to the Cowichan and ignored established and constitutional law, and principles, as well as all evidence presented that disputed the Cowichan's, and how politicized, ideologically bound Canadian judges have ignored the constitution to favour natives over the  years, this is an excellent summary in easy-to-understand language:

https://c2cjournal.ca/2025/09/manufactured-judgements-how-canadas-courts-promote-indigenous-radicalism/

[eyeball]

34 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"Tasha Kheiriddin: Cowichan decision exposes toxic 'colonizer' narratives"

"This week, over 100 homeowners in Richmond, B.C., got a notice no one wants to receive: Mayor Malcolm Brodie warned that due to a recent court decision, the title to their homes may be worthless."

Tasha Kheiriddin: Cowichan decision exposes toxic 'colonizer' narratives

How could one judge make such a ruling that throws over 100 homeowners actual ownership of their home and land into question?

I do not understand how any judge could make this kind of ruling and cause unnecessary pain and turmoil on so many people.  It is beyond belief.

The ruling is likely based on precedent for the most part - decades of other rulings and conclusions.

These are a result of our failure to negotiate treaties in the first place.

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I do not understand how any judge could make this kind of ruling and cause unnecessary pain and turmoil on so many people.  It is beyond belief.

Part of the pain I mentioned in another thread and now heartily approve of.

Expect to see more of it on numerous fronts... well deserved.

 

 

[blackbird]

We have some very strange commenters on this forum.  They have lost touch with reality.  Past treaties had nothing to do with this particular judge making this bizarre ruling.  The commenters in question are more likely motivated by their animosity to other people's comments on the forum.  That seems to be a proven pattern.  They automatically always take the opposite view and seldom contribute anything constructive.

The article that I am Groot posted the link for explains the problem.  It says in part:

"

In numerous cases involving aboriginal interests over the past several years, Canadian courts have weakened or abandoned what were always considered fundamental precepts of our legal system, often in a manner so damaging that it is impossible not to impute political motivations. These include granting quasi-citizenship rights to residents of foreign countries, creating areas in the country where the Constitution and its protection of individual rights do not apply, enabling nation-to-nation treaties with an undefined and amorphous collection of special pleaders, and recognizing spiritual and subjective claims as superseding provable physical reality.

These shocking outcomes are the consequence of many choices and intermediate decisions by lower-court judges across Canada to favour the interests of Indigenous plaintiffs over the broader interests of Canadian society. And nowhere is this process more obvious and troubling than in the actions of B.C. Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young in the recent case of Cowichan Tribes v. Canada. Young’s judgement threatens to undermine the very concept of private property rights for all Canadians. If that isn’t revolutionary, what is?"

"The Cowichan could, presumably, offer to relinquish their aboriginal title for $100 billion, or about $12 million (tax-free) per Cowichan band member. Regardless of the ultimate settlement, this ruling puts all property owners in Canada on notice: aboriginal title can now be retroactively asserted over any disputed piece of land."

How Canada’s Courts Promote Indigenous Radicalism

This has nothing to do with treaties having been signed or not signed in B.C.  Any judge is free to make whatever ruling he/she makes.  There was nothing that forced this judge to give a native band on Vancouver Island any rights over private land owned by over a hundred people in Richmond as well as other lands.  The existence or non-existence of past treaties had nothing to do with that ruling.

How some activist judge could be able to make such a ruling involving 100 billion dollars worth of private homes and other real estate is beyond belief.  This country is in serious trouble.

Edited October 22, 2025 by blackbird

[eyeball]

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Past treaties had nothing to do with this particular judge making this bizarre ruling. 

What treaties? There was no treaty. That's why things are bizarre.

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

This has nothing to do with treaties having been signed or not signed in B.C.  Any judge is free to make whatever ruling he/she makes. 

She wouldn't have been as free if there had been a treaty. It never would never have gone to court in the first place.

Expect more of the same or negotiate.

Have you considered dispossession, subjugation and oppression? I understand it's made a bit of a comeback in some circles.

[blackbird]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What treaties? There was no treaty. That's why things are bizarre.

Nonsense.  I said treaties or the absence of treaties had nothing to do with her ruling.

You need to go to the link and read the history of that piece of land.

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Expect more of the same or negotiate.

Sometimes it is impossible to negotiate.  The fact is native bands claim the whole province  and some have overlapping land claims.  Native are only 5% of the population and we are living in the 21st century now with 4 million residents in B.C.   B.C. is not going to give natives a huge chunk of B.C. or pay billions of dollars.  We are not a money tree that can be milked endlessly.  Natives have always received many services and benefits of non-native society and continue to do so.  Most has been paid for my white man.

The government has no mandate to negotiate away the province of B.C.  Times have changed.  The ancient history of pre-settlement is long gone and you need to study history and reality.

Edited October 22, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Have you considered dispossession, subjugation and oppression? I understand it's made a bit of a comeback in some circles.

You live in an alternate reality.  What dispossession, subjugation and oppression are you talking about.  You love to make up nonsense.

Natives receive huge benefits, services, including health care, roads, water, housing, education, and support from Canadians.  You love to always be contrary don't you.   It is time to put aside all this divisiveness and join society.  Nobody can change the past.

Edited October 22, 2025 by blackbird

[eyeball]

32 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Nonsense.  I said treaties or the absence of treaties had nothing to do with her ruling.

I know that's what you said. You're wrong.

29 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You live in an alternate reality.  What dispossession, subjugation and oppression are you talking about.  You love to make up nonsense.

I was suggesting you might want to consider starting from scratch since treaties, court cases and billions of dollars don't work.

To get things back to where you want you'll have to conquer the natives again but this time without all the loose ends.

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Nobody can change the past.

That's right. We can change the future though.

Either by negotiation, thru the courts or by conquest.

39 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You love to make up nonsense.

 Have you tried praying?

[Moonlight Graham]

del

Edited October 23, 2025 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

The natives have a legal right to their land, and IMO the non-natives also have a right to compensation.  The legal system changed their minds and essentially screwed them as much as they screwed the natives previously.

Also, I have no idea why a non-native would want to live in BC.  It's run by far-left nutters and sits on legally messed up land.

Edited October 23, 2025 by Moonlight Graham