User:Little.fishy.123/Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia

Evaluation of Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia article:

The content of this article is relevant to the topic, neutrally written, and addresses an important Wikipedia equity gap (historically underrepresented populations). Some claims are cited but many are missing citations, and there are areas that are significantly under-developed. ~ The Tsilhqot'in Nation V British Columbia case began in 1997 and was a landmark decision establishing Aboriginal Title for the Tsilhqot'in Nation in British Columbia. The province of British Columbia granted forest license's under the Forest Act in the Tsilhqot'in territory, allowing for the harvesting of trees. The Tsilhqot'in objected on the basis of the license threatening their rights and claim to the land. The case was taken to the Supreme Court where the Tsilhqot'in nation asserted their claim to the land and affirmed British Columbia's Duty to Consult. In 2014, a decision was reached by the Supreme Court, establishing that British Columbia breached their Duty to Consult. Aboriginal Title was further declared.

The Supreme Court's decision contributed significantly to the jurisprudence regarding Aboriginal land rights in Canada. Firstly, it was the first time Aboriginal title has been recognized, outside an Indian Reserve, to an Indigenous nation in Canada. Secondly, the Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia case expanded the Delgamuukw Test, specifically in justifying infringement of Aboriginal Title from the provinces. The Tsilhqot'in court required for consultation when engaging with Aboriginal Title holders, and if consent was not obtained, the province must adequately justify their infringement despite the title holders disapproval.

Background
Aboriginal Title refers to the recognition for Indigenous land owned areas. The area in British Columbia that the Tsilhqot'in nation defended in court is over 1700 sq. kilometres just southwest of Alexis Creek in the interior of British Columbia. The Claim Area specifically refers to the Tsilhqox (Chilko River) and the historical “Long Lake”, The Tsilhqox Corridor, Xeni (Nemiah Valley), Tachelach’ed (Brittany Triangle), Western Trapline Territory, and Eastern Trapline Territory. These areas are abundant in forestry, allowing them to be an ideal area for harvesting trees. This is significant as after Aboriginal title was recognized for the Tsilhqot'in Nation, it affirmed that economic development will require consent of the First Nation that holds the title. This can be contentious though, as legally the Crown can still push through development without the consent of the First Nation, only if it is able to demonstrate a compelling and substantial public purpose for the proposed activity. This judgement for the case is a landmark judgment as it "reaffirmed the consultation processes and the justification of infringements of Aboriginal rights and title are the responsibility of the Crown and not project proponents." Where there is no consent for this kind of action, it results in the potential infringement of Aboriginal Title not being justified. This can result in the proposed projects being set aside by the court. An important consideration for this surrounds the uncertainty that this creates for economic development in British Columbia.

Aboriginal Title
Aboriginal Title refers to the inherent Aboriginal right to land or a territory. This is recognized as a unique collective right to the "use of and jurisdiction over a group's ancestral territories." This is not granted from an external source, but is a result from the relationship Indigenous people share with the land, as well as how their ongoing social, political, and legal structures are built. Aboriginal title has been continuously shaped and defined by court cases throughout the years, with the Tsilhqot'in Nation case being one of the most landmark.The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed through this case that Aboriginal Title includes the rights to:


 * 1) Decide how the land will be used
 * 2) The right of enjoyment and occupancy of the land;
 * 3) The right to possess the land;
 * 4) The right to the economic benefits of the land; and
 * 5) The right to pro-actively use and manage the land and have the freedom to do so

Along with the more precise definition of Aboriginal title, these court decisions have further set parameters to how the Crown may infringe upon Aboriginal title in a legal, justifiable way. It is important that scholars and those attempting to interpret the constitution are aware that there is a difference between Aboriginal title as the Canadian legal system defines it and the "Original title" that Indigenous people see as they're own right to land and resources that they have had a relationship with for centuries.

Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court judgment in this case is significant as it is the first time in Canadian history that an Aboriginal title declaration has been recognized outside of an Indian Reserve. By doing this, the Supreme Court of Canada also clarified how the courts should determine when title should be recognized on Indigenous traditional territory. This was a powerful decision and changed the way that Indigenous land rights were handled and respected in the court system and as a whole. If the Supreme Court of Canada's judgement had not been definitive that Aboriginal title land represents only communal ownership, this judgement may have allowed individual property to be extended to First Nations members. This judgment call would have reached a new level of Indigenous equity in Canada and would have meant all Indigenous people's had a higher standard of living and better housing conditions on and off reserve land. The declaration of Aboriginal title was a victory for all those in the Tsilhqot'in Nation and Indigenous people in the country, but if Aboriginal title had included the right to own individual property for those on as well as off the reserve, it would have ensured an improvement in housing conditions for those on reserve land.

Impact of Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia on the Natural Resource Sector
Tsilhqot'in requires interested parties to consult with Aboriginal Title holders rather than the province when seeking resource opportunities in lands claimed by the Tsilhqot'in nation. If a Title holder is seeking to develop their resources, they must address a number of legal barriers before collaborating with resource corporations. The first is that only the Crown may negotiate with Title holders on the acquisition of the land. Where third parties are concerned, the Crown must partake in discussions surrounding resource development on title land. The second are the inherent limitations present with Aboriginal Title. To address the inherent limitations, Indigenous communities engage with their community to develop the land together and clarify how the land will be used in future generations. The third relates to the content pertaining to each Indigenous nation's Aboriginal Title.