Update — June 3, 2026

Currentness note: the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed leave in the New Brunswick Wolastoqey title case on May 29, leaving that lower-court ruling in place. That does not decide the B.C. Cowichan/Montrose file on the merits; this article therefore continues to describe Cowichan as active/unresolved B.C. proceedings rather than a settled province-wide private-property rule. SCC leave decision

Veteran Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer reported on May 5, 2026 that the BC and federal governments have now formally aligned themselves with a private property owner’s bid to reopen the explosive Cowichan Tribes Aboriginal title decision — the August 2025 ruling that recognized Indigenous title over fee-simple land in Richmond. The hearing was scheduled for May 25 and 26, 2026 and was reported as continuing through May 27 before the same judge who issued the original 900-page decision: BC Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young.

Premier David Eby has now publicly tied himself to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s position. “I am hopeful certainly that we are on the same page as the prime minister on the matter of private property,” Eby told reporters Monday. “It doesn’t feel particularly controversial between us at all.”

Carney had told the House of Commons last week that his government “fundamentally disagrees with the B.C. Supreme Court’s decision in Cowichan” and confirmed both Ottawa and Victoria had immediately appealed.

What Montrose Is Asking the Court to Do

The application to reopen comes from Montrose Holdings — one of the major fee-simple owners of the property covered by Justice Young’s Aboriginal title designation. According to Palmer’s reporting, Montrose argues it was excluded from the proceedings and only learned its property was affected when the decision came down in August 2025.

BC’s submission, quoted by Palmer:

“The orders sought by Montrose should be granted so that Montrose can speak with its own voice regarding the consequences a declaration of Aboriginal title has had on its fee-simple title and business activities. This court should hear from and consider the direct perspective of the private land owners affected by a declaration of Aboriginal title.”

— Government of British Columbia, in support of Montrose application

The federal Crown’s submission goes further, conceding that “uncertainty thus remains regarding how Aboriginal title and fee simple are to coexist in practice pending successful negotiations or future litigation.” In other words: the federal government is now openly acknowledging that the Cowichan decision created legal uncertainty for private property in B.C. — uncertainty Eby and his ministers have been trying to wave away in public for months.

What Cowichan Is Saying Back

The Cowichan Nation, victorious at trial, is fiercely opposing the application to reopen. Their submission, quoted by Palmer, calls it:

“An abuse of process. It seeks to relitigate issues that were thoroughly argued and definitively decided in court… If the plaintiffs wish to dispute the findings of the court, any recourse they may have is at the Court of Appeal, not in relitigating matters before the same court that issued the trial decision.”

— Cowichan Nation court submission

Cowichan also argues that adding private parties to Aboriginal title claims would render such litigation “so unmanageable that they will never achieve” final resolution — and that anyway, the trial court was correct to withhold formal notification from private landowners on grounds of “proportionality, access to justice, and reconciliation.”

Cowichan does not rule out, in the future, “seek[ing] to exercise title rights on lands to which Montrose Industries has a fee simple interest.” If that day comes, Cowichan says, Montrose’s remedies are not against the First Nation — only against the Crown. Both Crowns. Federal and provincial.

Why This Hearing Matters

The Cowichan Reopen Application — Key Facts

  • August 2025: BC Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young issues 900-page ruling recognizing Cowichan Aboriginal title over private fee-simple land in Richmond.
  • Late 2025: Both BC and federal governments file appeals.
  • April 30, 2026: PM Carney tells the House of Commons his government “fundamentally disagrees” with the ruling and is appealing alongside BC.
  • May 4, 2026: Premier Eby publicly aligns with Carney’s position.
  • May 25–27, 2026: Montrose application to reopen the trial heard before Justice Young; outcome pending as of this audit.
  • Both Crowns support reopening. Cowichan opposes, calling it abuse of process.
  • Next stops: BC Court of Appeal — and presumably the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Cowichan ruling is widely understood to be the first BC Supreme Court decision to recognize Aboriginal title over privately held land. If it stands, it has implications for tens of thousands of fee-simple titles across the province — particularly in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island, where reserves and traditional territories overlap with dense urban development.

What is striking, as Palmer carefully documents, is the political reversal it has forced on the Eby government. For two years the NDP insisted that DRIPA (the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act) would not affect private property — that critics raising concerns were peddling “misinformation.” Now the same government is in court, on the same side as a private property owner, asking the BC Supreme Court to reopen the very decision it once said was nothing for homeowners to worry about.

Five Questions for Eby Before May 25

1. Will the Premier or Attorney General David Eby personally appear in court to argue BC’s position?

2. Has any cabinet minister apologized to homeowners and Realtors who were told for years that DRIPA “would not affect private property”?

3. What is the government’s plan if Justice Young denies the application to reopen on May 26?

4. Why did the BC government not formally notify other affected fee-simple owners during the original Cowichan trial?

5. Will the province publish, in advance of May 25, the legal opinions it relied on when assuring British Columbians that DRIPA could not affect private title?

The Cowichan reopen hearing is not a procedural side-show. It is the moment the BC NDP’s eight-year DRIPA strategy gets stress-tested in a courtroom, in public, with a federal government that is now openly admitting the policy created “uncertainty” for private property — the very thing the Eby government insisted would never happen.

British Columbians who own homes, run small businesses, or hold development land in this province deserve answers before the gavel comes down on May 26 — not afterward.