- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 10,576
- 0
- 6
The Law Society of British Columbia warned Monday that the provincial government’s intention to amend the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) may erode judicial independence and limit access to independent courts.
In the statement, the Law Society reiterated that interpreting legislation is a constitutional function of courts. Although the executive government may disagree with the courts’ statutory interpretation, the statement urged politicians to be cautious when commenting on judicial decisions. The statement concluded with the Law Society urging the government to reconsider the potential amendment to DRIPA that may restrict access to independent courts. The Canadian Bar Association issued a similar appeal on January 21.
The statement follows remarks made by David Eby, the premier of British Columbia, at the Natural Resources Forum on January 20. In his remarks, he accused the courts of creating “real confusion about what DRIPA is about and what reconciliation means in practice.” He added that reconciliation–a relationship between the Canadian governments and the First Nations governments–is not for the courts to take over. He signaled the government’s intention to amend DRIPA to reflect the said legislative intent and protect private property rights by limiting the role of the courts in reconciliation efforts.
In 2025, the province witnessed two landmark rulings relating to Aboriginal rights and title. The BC Supreme Court held in August that the Cowichan Tribes have established Aboriginal title in the city of Richmond. It follows that the fee simple interests–a freehold interest in land–on the Cowichan Title Lands were unjustified infringements on Aboriginal title and were therefore defective. Notably, the court has explicitly held that Aboriginal title and fee simple interests can coexist on the same piece of land, requiring the government to negotiate an arrangement with the Cowichan Tribes in 18 months.
In December, the BC Court of Appeal held by a 2-1 majority that the provincial mineral tenure system–registering mineral rights online without notifying or consulting the Gitxaała and Ehattesaht nations–is impermissible under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which provincial laws must align with and is legally binding on the government.
At the same time, Premier Eby stated that repealing DRIPA will not accelerate construction projects and attract investment. According to Premier Eby, DRIPA has allowed construction projects to move forward without prolonged litigation. He reaffirmed that reconciliation with the First Nations and the recognition of Aboriginal title are the province’s constitutional obligations under Article 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unanimous consensus in the legislature in 2019. This acknowledged the BC Conservative lawmaker, Scott McInnis’ call to repeal DRIPA after the rulings.
The First Nations also objected to the possible amendment to DRIPA. Marilyn Slett, the elected chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, told the CBC that DRIPA, codeveloped by the provincial government and the First Nations, provides greater trust, stability, and economic certainty. The BC Assembly of First Nations similarly warned that amending DRIPA and appealing the court rulings could harm the relationship between the First Nations and the government.
The post British Columbia premier’s commitment to amend DRIPA sparks judicial independence concerns appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
In the statement, the Law Society reiterated that interpreting legislation is a constitutional function of courts. Although the executive government may disagree with the courts’ statutory interpretation, the statement urged politicians to be cautious when commenting on judicial decisions. The statement concluded with the Law Society urging the government to reconsider the potential amendment to DRIPA that may restrict access to independent courts. The Canadian Bar Association issued a similar appeal on January 21.
The statement follows remarks made by David Eby, the premier of British Columbia, at the Natural Resources Forum on January 20. In his remarks, he accused the courts of creating “real confusion about what DRIPA is about and what reconciliation means in practice.” He added that reconciliation–a relationship between the Canadian governments and the First Nations governments–is not for the courts to take over. He signaled the government’s intention to amend DRIPA to reflect the said legislative intent and protect private property rights by limiting the role of the courts in reconciliation efforts.
In 2025, the province witnessed two landmark rulings relating to Aboriginal rights and title. The BC Supreme Court held in August that the Cowichan Tribes have established Aboriginal title in the city of Richmond. It follows that the fee simple interests–a freehold interest in land–on the Cowichan Title Lands were unjustified infringements on Aboriginal title and were therefore defective. Notably, the court has explicitly held that Aboriginal title and fee simple interests can coexist on the same piece of land, requiring the government to negotiate an arrangement with the Cowichan Tribes in 18 months.
In December, the BC Court of Appeal held by a 2-1 majority that the provincial mineral tenure system–registering mineral rights online without notifying or consulting the Gitxaała and Ehattesaht nations–is impermissible under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which provincial laws must align with and is legally binding on the government.
At the same time, Premier Eby stated that repealing DRIPA will not accelerate construction projects and attract investment. According to Premier Eby, DRIPA has allowed construction projects to move forward without prolonged litigation. He reaffirmed that reconciliation with the First Nations and the recognition of Aboriginal title are the province’s constitutional obligations under Article 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unanimous consensus in the legislature in 2019. This acknowledged the BC Conservative lawmaker, Scott McInnis’ call to repeal DRIPA after the rulings.
The First Nations also objected to the possible amendment to DRIPA. Marilyn Slett, the elected chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, told the CBC that DRIPA, codeveloped by the provincial government and the First Nations, provides greater trust, stability, and economic certainty. The BC Assembly of First Nations similarly warned that amending DRIPA and appealing the court rulings could harm the relationship between the First Nations and the government.
The post British Columbia premier’s commitment to amend DRIPA sparks judicial independence concerns appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.