Re: BC Supreme Court Decision Tsilhqot'in Nation
in response to
by
posted on
Jul 03, 2012 05:05PM
NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)
For the Tsilhqot'in, the recent court of appeal judgment serves to strengthen their case against the New Prosperity mine proposal. While they did not get the title declaration they hoped for, the Tsilhqot'in did see their rights firmed up substantially and in a way that will make it incredibly hard to push the mine through (from my lay perspective).
The Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman wrote in his judgment:
[233] In considering Aboriginal title and Aboriginal rights, the Court must take into account Aboriginal perspective as well as that of the common law. The connection of the Tsilhqot’in Nation to its traditional territory has both spiritual and temporal aspects that are difficult to convey in the dry words of a judgment. This deep connection must, however, remain foremost in the Court’s mind in considering issues of Aboriginal title and Aboriginal rights. I am not convinced that the relationship of the Tsilhqot’in people to the land requires recognition of title on a territorial basis; it does, however, require the Court to affirm the existence of Aboriginal rights that respect the Tsilhqot’in perspective on its own culture and values. The recognition of such rights will serve to prevent incompatible uses of the land. [emphasis added]
He went on to say:
[236] Aboriginal rights of various sorts protect cultural security and safeguard the ability of First Nations to continue to engage in traditional lifestyles.
And Justice Groberman then points out:
[316] In saying this, I recognize that very little logging actually took place in the Claim Area. As a result of the litigation, most activities were stopped. I do not think this fact precludes a finding that the Aboriginal rights of the Tsilhqot’in were infringed. The plaintiff did not have to wait until the traditional territory of the Tsilhqot’in was negatively impacted before seeking a declaration. The very acts of planning and authorizing logging infringed the Aboriginal rights of the Tsilhqot’in, since the planning and authorization were incompatible with those rights. [emphasis added]
They still have to go through the process, but BC and Canada must be weighing these words carefully now.