...
As for the Richmond ruling, it's the first time UNDRIP has come into direct conflict with common law in Canada. It is true that the band originally didn't ask for title to private land, but now that they won, they are asking for way more on appeal. Clearly it has to end somewhere, as UNDRIP is not a blank cheque. I think this ruling, and the inevitable appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, sets up a discussion that in the end will result in private property rights being upheld in Canada. Anything else will result in a conflict that neither side wants.
While AFAIK the case, trial and ruling did not rely mainly on UNDRIP. My interpretation is the conflict is with the 1982 Constitution Act and the summary of the court declaration is:
"The Crown grants of fee simple interest in the Cowichan Title Lands, and the Crown vesting of the soil and freehold interest in certain highway lands in the Cowichan Title Lands, unjustifiably infringe the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title;"
"With respect to the Cowichan Title Lands, BC owes a duty to the Cowichan to negotiate in good faith reconciliation of the Crown granted fee simple interests held by third parties and the Crown vesting of the soil and freehold interest to Richmond with Cowichan Aboriginal title, in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown;..."
the ruling is available here: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc1490/2025bcsc1490.html#SCJTITLEBookMark5401
a further analysis is available here: https://jfklaw.ca/cowichan-tribes-and-private-property-separating-fact-from-fiction/
where they state:
"The Court also did not hold that Aboriginal title automatically or necessarily displaces fee simple title. Instead, the Court clarified that Aboriginal title and fee simple interests can coexist, though their exercise may sometimes conflict. What the decision makes clear is that reconciliation is needed between these overlapping interests, and it is British Columbia’s constitutional obligation to advance that reconciliation."