In a landmark ruling that could drastically reshape relations between First Nations, the Government of British Columbia, and British Columbians and the business community, the B.C. Court of Appeal declared today that the provincial government’s current mineral claim-staking system is inconsistent with Indigenous rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has immediate legal meaning in provincial law.

This decision by a majority of the three judges overseeing the appeal case arises from appeals brought by the Gitxaala First Nation and the Ehattesaht First Nation.

Both First Nations challenged the long-standing “free entry” mineral tenure system, which allows anyone to stake a mining claim online without prior notice to Indigenous communities whose territories may be affected.

They argued that this system ignores their rights and undermines the provincial government’s obligations under the Mineral Tenure Act and the BC NDP’s prior approval in 2019 of the B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which incorporates UNDRIP into provincial law.

All provincial laws must be interpreted through UNDRIP

In a written ruling today, the B.C. Court of Appeal sided with the First Nations. In a strongly worded majority judgment written by Justice Dickson and joined by Justice Iyer, the appeal court held that the lower court had taken too narrow a view of DRIPA.

The majority — two of the three judges on the panel — ruled that DRIPA does not simply gesture toward UNDRIP. They ruled that it brings UNDRIP directly into the law of B.C.

According to the judgment, UNDRIP now provides a lens through which all provincial laws must be interpreted and sets the minimum standards the provincial government must meet.

The appeal court judges stated that the provincial government has a legal duty to work with Indigenous peoples to identify and correct inconsistencies between provincial laws and UNDRIP.

A major part of the ruling confirms that courts play a crucial role in reviewing whether provincial laws conform to UNDRIP. The provincial government had argued that determining such inconsistencies was a matter strictly for government and legislators. The appeal court firmly rejected this argument, concluding that questions about whether B.C. laws conflict with UNDRIP are legal questions that the courts are fully empowered to decide.

B.C. Conservatives call for the urgent repeal of DRIPA

Critics are already pointing to the BC NDP-led government’s reconciliation-focused approach as a major contributor to the growing climate of uncertainty in British Columbia.

They argue that Premier David Eby and his cabinet’s eagerness to embed UNDRIP into provincial law without clear implementation plans has opened the door to legal challenges that weaken provincial authority, disrupt established systems, and leave British Columbians facing the economic and regulatory consequences.

In a statement reacting to today’s court decision, the Conservative Party of B.C. is calling on Premier Eby to recall the provincial legislature to repeal DRIPA.

“This ruling highlights exactly what happens when government tries to legislate reconciliation through vague and undefined promises,” said MLA Scott McInnis, the deputy critic for Indigenous relations and reconciliation, for the B.C. Conservatives in a statement. “British Columbians deserve certainty and transparency. Indigenous communities deserve meaningful consultation that is done properly and up front. Instead, the BC NDP built a system that ran on autopilot, then created years of legal uncertainty for everyone.”

“This is why Conservatives believe DRIPA must be repealed and is calling for the Premier to immediately recall the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia so we can do so in one day. The duty to consult is clear in Canadian law, and it must be honoured. DRIPA is creating confusion about who decides what, when, and by what standard. That uncertainty helps nobody. British Columbians deserve laws that are clear, democratic, and workable, and reconciliation must be built through real engagement and practical outcomes, not legal ambiguity.”

New precedent for future legal challenges

After examining the Mineral Tenure Act, the appeal court concluded that the way mineral claims are currently granted — without advance consultation — conflicts with the standards set out in UNDRIP. This includes rights related to Indigenous land management, participation in decision-making, and the principle of free, prior and informed consent. The appeal court described the mineral claims regime and UNDRIP as inconsistent and held that the provincial government must address this conflict.

Not all three judges on the panel overseeing the case agreed with Justice Dickson and Justice Iyer.

Justice Riley issued a lengthy dissent arguing that DRIPA is a mandate to the provincial government, not a tool for courts. In his view, the task of bringing B.C. laws into alignment with UNDRIP belongs to the legislative and executive branches, and asking courts to assess compliance would improperly pull the judiciary into political decision-making. The majority rejected that interpretation, but the dissent highlights how significant the ruling is for constitutional boundaries and the role of courts in reconciliation.

The case stems from long-standing frustrations among First Nations over B.C.’s mineral tenure system, which dates back more than a century. Because the system allows claims to be granted instantly and without notice, First Nations often discover mining interests in their territories only after the fact. Although the lower provincial court had found a breach of the Crown’s obligation to consult, it had stopped short of recognizing UNDRIP as having legal force. The appeal court has now reversed that limitation.

The ruling does not immediately abolish the Mineral Tenure Act, but it obliges the provincial government to take concrete steps to overhaul the regime in cooperation with First Nations. This will likely require major reform of how mineral claims are registered and may significantly change the balance of authority between government, industry and Indigenous Nations. The decision also sets a precedent for future legal challenges involving other provincial laws that may not align with UNDRIP.

Adding to the growing Aboriginal title controversy

For First Nations, the ruling may strengthen their position, but for the provincial government it delivers a serious setback in its powers and authority, forcing it to confront major legal and administrative upheaval.

Instead of operating under long-standing systems, the provincial government could now face the costly and time-consuming task of dismantling and rebuilding its regulatory framework to meet new legal standards.

For British Columbians, especially those who rely on revenues, jobs, and economic stability tied to the resource sector, the decision raises the prospect of prolonged uncertainty, slowed project approvals, and potential conflicts over land use.

For the mining industry and other resource sectors, it signals a disruptive shift toward a far more restrictive and unpredictable operating environment, with increased barriers, delays, and obligations that could affect investment and development across the province.

This ruling also casts a long shadow over the upcoming appeal launched by the provincial and federal governments and the City of Richmond in the Cowichan Tribes’ case regarding Aboriginal title being granted to the First Nation over a large area of southeast Richmond, including both public and private property. It is also going through the B.C. Court of Appeal.

Although the issues are not identical, the appeal court’s firm stance on the legal force of Indigenous rights and its willingness to scrutinize government decision-making send a clear signal about the direction the appeal court could take.

For governments hoping the court will limit the scope of Indigenous authority in their own appeal, this decision is an ominous sign. It shows a judiciary increasingly unwilling to defer to the provincial and federal governments when Indigenous rights are at stake, raising serious concerns that the governments’ position in the Cowichan Tribes matter may face an even steeper uphill battle than before.

Taken together, the August 2025 Cowichan Tribes decision and this latest ruling set what many will view as a deeply troubling and undemocratic precedent for British Columbia. The Cowichan Tribes  case, and the more recent Haida First Nation ruling, could represent the very tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of Aboriginal title land claims going through the court system, with other publicly known cases dealing with lands in Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam, as well as a major area of the B.C. Interior, including the entirety of the City of Kamloops and Sun Peaks Resort.

With courts increasingly willing to reinterpret long-standing provincial authority through the lens of UNDRIP, there are growing fears that the stability of private property rights, resource development, and even day-to-day governance could be undermined. These decisions introduce new layers of uncertainty into how land can be used, how projects can proceed, and how governments can regulate and support economic growth and social benefits.

Instead of providing clarity, the evolving legal landscape risks paralyzing decision-making, discouraging investment, and weakening the ability of governments to manage the economy and provide essential services to communities across B.C.

The City of Richmond previously suggested that if the appeal process over the Cowichan Tribes fails in the B.C. Court of Appeal, the next and final step would be to take it to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, this could drag on the legal uncertainty for many more years.

It is not immediately clear whether today’s decision will be appealed in Canada’s top court.