| Legal chronology of the Roger William case | |
| Treaty Process Context
BC government has reached 31 non-treaty agreements, more than triple the original commitment. Specifically, since 2006, B.C. has reached more than 200 agreements relating to the land base with First Nations, both through the treaty process and non-treaty agreements such as revenue-sharing agreements, which can serve as building blocks towards a treaty. BC Supreme Court 1990-1998: Roger William, on behalf of Tsilhqot’in Nation, (near Williams Lake) filed action in BC Supreme Court seeking a declaration of Aboriginal title over 438,000 hectares in B.C.’s Cariboo-Chilcotin region. The claim area represents approximately one-half of the traditional territory claimed by the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation and about 5 to 10% of the traditional territory claimed by the Tsilhqot’in Nation. Chief William also sought a declaration of Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal rights to hunt and trap in the claim area and to trade animal skins and pelts. 2002-2007: The trial began in November 2002 before the BC Supreme Court and was heard over 339 trial days. Reasons for judgment were delivered in November 2007. Justice Vickers found that:
BC Court of Appeal 2012: Chief William, Canada and B.C. appealed Justice Vickers’ decision. The BC Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals. The Court of Appeal expressed a different opinion on aboriginal title than Justice Vickers in that aboriginal title must be demonstrated on a site-specific rather than territorial basis. The Court of Appeal agreed with Justice Vickers that the Forest Act infringed on the Tsilhqot’in Nation’s Aboriginal rights. Supreme Court of Canada 2013: Chief William appealed the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. The appeal was heard on November 7, 2013. 2014: On June 20, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada announced that they would deliver a judgment on June 26, 2014. In today’s decision, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the trial judge’s findings regarding title and provided guidance and clarity regarding the continuing validity of provincial laws of general application. As well, it offered clarity related to the scope of consultation and accommodation applicable to those lands over which Aboriginal title is asserted or proven. |
|