First time you’ve been wrong Tarzan, this dates back longer than...

First time you’ve been wrong Tarzan, this dates back longer than 6 months ago, in fact it is such old news EdCraig’s link doesn’t even work!
You’re just being scurrilous now EdCraig. This is already a known known, why go over old news unless there is an ulterior motive?
This finding dates back to June 2014, what is the point of reminding us now?
For a factual explanation of the finding, please refer to the literature below which is sourced from www.legalcrossroads.ca/e/tsilqhotin-and-the-clarification-of-native-title.cfm
If you have as much time as EdCraig & MostlyWrong, then the full finding can be read at www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014/2014scc44/2014scc44.html
This thread is closed.
Tsilqhot'in and the Clarification of Native Title

by Paul Taylor-Sussex on July 31, 2014
Last month’s Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia case has been lauded as a landmark ruling and a great step forward for Aboriginal title in Canada. It is the first decision to recognise a title claim to a specific site, and is another confirmation that Aboriginal people still own their ancestral lands. This post will examine the case and explore its impact.
Aboriginal title gives the right to use and manage a given piece of land to its original inhabitants, native Canadians, thereby preserving the land for future generations. Once title has been asserted, the government and other entities are required to obtain consent from the title holders if they wish to use the land. Aboriginal title is not absolute however, and there are circumstances where an infringement can override the title, such as if it is in the broader public good. It also must always take into account the interests of the Aboriginal people who claimed the land. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 protects Aboriginal rights, including land claims and treaty rights.
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia concerned the Tsilqhot'in Nation, a semi-nomadic people who sought recognition of Aboriginal title over 1,750 square kilometres of land in central British Columbia. The dispute originated in 1983, when the BC government granted a commercial licence to a company to log the land, which the Tsilqhot'in objected to. When the case reached the BC Court of Appeal, the court applied a narrow test, and stated that title constituted only small, specific sites, not large tracts of land, and that the Tsilqhot'in needed to show ‘intensive occupation’. This was rejected by the Supreme Court in their recent decision, where it was found that title can be established not only through visible occupation, but by ‘a strong presence on or over the land claimed, manifesting itself in acts of occupation that could reasonably be interpreted as demonstrating that the land in question belonged to, was controlled by, or was under the exclusive stewardship of the claimant group’. The Court decided that the Tsilqhot'in Nation had met the test to establish title, confirming that the land had been occupied continuously and exclusively for centuries. In doing so, it also laid out for the first time the requirements to prove Aboriginal title over land. The Court found that the BC government had violated its fiduciary duty to consult with the traditional owners of land before granting the logging licence.
The Tsilhqot'in decision is a natural continuation of prior case-law, following on from four important previous cases, all cited by the Court in its decision. Calder v Attorney General of British Columbia from 1973 was effectively the starting point for modern Aboriginal land rights, as the Supreme Court ruled that the right to land of native Canadians survived European settlement and exists to this day. This was affirmed in Guerin v The Queen from 1984. R v Sparrow confirmed the rights for Aboriginal people in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and outlined the justification analysis for infringing Aboriginal title. Finally, Delgamuukw v British Columbia in 1997 expanded upon the rights and obligations of the Crown to Aboriginal title considerations, and also clarified that title cannot be taken away or misused in such a way that jeopardises future generations'benefit of the land.
The Tsilhqot'in judgement has been almost universally applauded. Former treaty rights negotiator Bill Gallagher called it a case of ‘national significance and national importance, bulletproof in its legal reasoning’.¹ Former B.C. attorney general Geoff Plant believes the case finally recognises Canadian First Nations as ‘the true owners of their traditional territories - not just claimants, but owners’.² Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs hopes the ruling will usher in a ‘genuine dialogue of reconciliation that has eluded us for so long’.³ Robert Janes of Vancouver's JFK Law Corp agrees, ‘What’s going to be interesting is if governments find ways to actually start making real lasting peace with First Nations, recognizing now the courts have said that aboriginal title is more than this shadowy, mysterious right’.⁴
Others have been more cautious with their praise. In many respects the decision is an extension of pre-existing case-law and legislation regarding Aboriginal title rights, and is not unprecedented. Additionally, as Aboriginal rights author Terry Glavin points out: ‘we should not be so quick to characterize [the Court's] findings as being a matter of judges having magically ‘granted’ the Tsilhqot’in legal title to their lands’ because ‘those lands were [their] lands all along’. What Glavin believes the case does do is clarify the law in regard to Aboriginal title, and makes clear the guidelines for establishing a legitimate claim to land. It also re-emphasises the fiduciary duty that the Crown owes to First Nations people, and the consultation and collaboration necessary for all projects on title land.⁵
Many forestry, mining and resource companies have been watching nervously as the case unfolded. The ruling gives powerful leverage to Aboriginal title holders, and highlights the fact that these industries need to appreciate the legitimate claim that First Nations have to certain areas of land. Some believe the decision will complicate resource proposals, such as the Northern Gateway crude oil pipeline, a $7 billion project. While the Business Council of British Columbia was initially skeptical about the case, in a more recent press release they called the decision ‘an important clarification of aboriginal title [that] provides for greater certainty around the application of provincial law and regulation’.⁶
The Tsilhqot'in decision may not be the ground-breaking judgement some commenters claim it to be, but the case is important for the way it affirms title rights for Canadian Aboriginal people, now and for future generations. The case is welcome news for the hundreds of Aboriginal groups across Canada, particularly in BC, who have unresolved land claims. The case was a long time in the making - court proceedings first began in 2002 - but hopefully forthcoming disputes over Aboriginal title will be resolved in a timely manner now that the law has received some Supreme Court clarification.