The City of Richmond has reportedly sent letters to approximately 150 property owners, informing them that a British Columbia Supreme Court ruling on August 7, 2025, in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490, recognized Aboriginal title for the Cowichan Nation over approximately 732 acres of land in southeast Richmond, along the south arm of the Fraser River.
Signed by Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, the letter included a briefing paper and a draft map outlining the affected area and invited residents to an information session on October 28, 2025.
The court’s ruling declared Aboriginal title over roughly 40% of the Cowichan Nation’s original claim of 1,846 acres, which includes private homes, roads, riverfront properties, and agricultural land. The map attached to the letter marks the 732-acre area (in black) as the land subject to the Aboriginal title declaration, while the surrounding area (in green) represents the full claim, which the Cowichan Nation seeks to expand through an ongoing appeal.
The ruling found that Crown land grants in the titled area are “defective” due to Aboriginal title, but may not invalidate private fee-simple titles. Rather, it mandates that the Crown negotiate reconciliation of title and property interests with the Cowichan Nation over an 18-month period, during which implementation is suspended.
Mayor Brodie’s letter noted that private property owners were not directly notified during the legal proceedings, as the trial focused on Crown lands. The ruling does not order evictions or immediate title transfers (yet), and private homeowners are not automatically entitled to compensation. However, negotiations may address potential compensation or other resolutions, such as land purchases, depending on appeal outcomes.
Legal experts note that the ruling is significant as the first to recognize Aboriginal title overlapping private fee-simple lands in British Columbia, potentially influencing future land claims. However, its impact on property rights remains uncertain pending the appeal process. Some analysts suggest that properties in the claim area may face marketability or valuation challenges until resolved.
The Cowichan Nation’s claim is based on historical use and exclusive occupation of the land, centered on their pre-1846 village site, Tl’uqtinus, which was said to be promised as a reserve but sold to settlers in the 1870s. The court validated this claim using oral histories, expert testimony, and historical records. Affected municipalities and some homeowners have expressed concerns about the ruling’s implications for private property rights, though British Columbia Premier David Eby has emphasized that private property interests will be protected during negotiations.
Property owners are encouraged to attend the City of Richmond’s information session or consult legal counsel for guidance. The outcome of the appeals and subsequent negotiations will determine the long-term effects on the affected properties.
For years, Canada and other Western countries — including Australia and New Zealand — have entertained the idea that their nations were built on “someone else’s land.” From land acknowledgments at public events to school curricula depicting the heirs of the British Empire as invaders on stolen ground, this narrative has been steadily reinforced for decades.
But this was never without purpose. Convince a people long enough that they are illegitimate occupants, and eventually they will accept surrendering their land as a moral duty. We have drifted from mere acknowledgments to active appropriation — from saying the land isn’t ours, to being told we must now give it up.
If you wish to understand where this ends, look to Richmond. Keep affirming that you live on “stolen” or “borrowed” land, and one day you may open your mailbox to find a letter proving just how literally that belief can be enforced.
