A BC Court of Appeal ruling handed down Tuesday delivers a significant legal blow to the argument that Indigenous law can be invoked to override Canadian court orders — and it arrives at a moment when that very question sits at the heart of BC's political crisis over DRIPA.

The case involves Wet'suwet'en hereditary Chief Dsta'hyl (also known as Adam Bernard Gagnon), who was convicted of criminal contempt for violating an injunction protecting Coastal GasLink pipeline construction in 2021. He appealed, arguing he was "compelled" to breach the injunction by Wet'suwet'en trespass law — that he was enforcing his nation's own legal order when he and other hereditary chiefs served Coastal GasLink an eviction notice.

The three-judge appellate panel rejected that defence unanimously.

What the Court Said

BC Court of Appeal — Key Finding

"Indigenous law has been denied, suppressed, and at times outlawed, for over a century in Canada. Canadian law has a role to play in undoing that harm and is learning to make space for Indigenous legal orders in various ways. But that work does not include allowing parties, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, to breach court orders."

The court found that disobeying the injunction was not a "last resort" — that there were other lawful and peaceful means available to challenge it. A lower court had characterized the defence as a "collateral attack" on the injunction, and the appeal panel agreed.

Chief Dsta'hyl was not asking the court to condone his conduct. He sought to be excused from liability on the basis of Wet'suwet'en law. The court said no: you cannot use Indigenous law as a shield against a contempt conviction for violating a court order.

Why This Matters for DRIPA

This ruling lands in the middle of BC's ongoing DRIPA crisis, and it matters for reasons that go beyond the specific facts of Chief Dsta'hyl's case.

One of the central disputes driving the DRIPA debate — and one of the reasons Eby tried and failed to amend the law this month — is precisely the question of what happens when Indigenous law and Canadian legal orders conflict. Advocates for an expansive interpretation of DRIPA have argued that Indigenous consent can effectively function as a veto over resource development approvals, injunctions, and Crown decisions. Two BC court rulings this year have given DRIPA some of that real legal weight.

Tuesday's ruling pulls in the other direction. The Court of Appeal is saying clearly: even as Canadian law evolves to make space for Indigenous legal orders, that evolution does not extend to allowing people to breach court injunctions and claim immunity by citing Indigenous law.

"Canadian law has a role to play in undoing that harm and is learning to make space for Indigenous legal orders in various ways. But that work does not include allowing parties, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, to breach court orders."

— BC Court of Appeal, April 28, 2026

That is a carefully worded sentence. The court is not dismissing Indigenous law. It is drawing a boundary: reconciliation happens through lawful means, not through unilateral breach of injunctions.

The Amnesty International Angle

In 2024, Amnesty International declared Chief Dsta'hyl a "prisoner of conscience," claiming he had been wrongfully criminalized "for defending the land and rights of the Wet'suwet'en people." That framing — which casts a criminal contempt conviction as political persecution — has been widely circulated in activist and media circles.

The court's ruling doesn't engage with the politics. It engages with the law. And on the law, it found that the defence was not available: there were other lawful avenues, the injunction was valid, and Indigenous law — however legitimate in its own right — does not provide a legal excuse for breaching it.

That distinction matters. The Amnesty framing implies the Canadian legal system is simply wrong to apply to Indigenous peoples acting under their own law. The court is saying something more nuanced: the legal system is evolving, but that evolution has limits, and one of those limits is that court orders must be respected while you challenge them through proper channels.

The Bigger Picture

This week in BC has produced a remarkable sequence of legal and political events, all circling the same set of questions about Indigenous law, consent, and the limits of DRIPA:

BC's Indigenous Law Week in Review

  • April 24: NDP scraps DRIPA amendment plan after Joan Phillip objects; Conservatives try to repeal DRIPA (47–44 vote)
  • April 25: All 5 Conservative leadership candidates pledge DRIPA repeal at Vancouver debate
  • April 28: UBCIC threatens litigation over K'omoks and Kitselas treaty bills — citing lack of consent under DRIPA's own principles
  • April 28: BC Court of Appeal rules Indigenous law cannot be used to breach court injunctions

The pattern is one of increasing legal and political pressure from every direction. DRIPA advocates say it doesn't go far enough — the law should give Indigenous nations real veto power. Conservatives say it goes too far and must be repealed. Courts are drawing careful lines about where Indigenous law operates and where it doesn't. And the NDP government is caught in the middle, unable to please anyone.

For Chief Dsta'hyl, Tuesday's ruling means his criminal contempt conviction stands. For BC's broader debate over Indigenous rights, resource development, and the rule of law, it adds another data point to a rapidly evolving legal landscape — one the NDP must now navigate without a coherent strategy, having abandoned its own attempt at clarification three weeks ago.

The courts are doing the work the NDP refused to do. Whether anyone will like the result is another question entirely.