THUNDER BAY – INDIGENOUS NEWS – In a landmark split decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) is more than symbolic – it must be used as an “interpretive lens” for all B.C. laws and government decision-making.
The ruling is a major victory for the Gitxaala Nation and Ehattesaht First Nation, who challenged B.C.’s online mineral claim-staking system and argued it sidelines First Nations and ignores the Crown’s duty to consult.
This ruling will set a precedent for similar cases across Canada. The decision largely overturns a September 2023 B.C. Supreme Court finding that said DRIPA was not enforceable by the courts.
Court: DRIPA Is Legally Enforceable, Not Just Aspirational
A two-to-one majority of the Court of Appeal held that DRIPA — passed unanimously in 2019 to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in B.C. — must guide how judges read and apply provincial statutes.
The majority said the lower court took an “unduly narrow” view when it concluded DRIPA was not justiciable. Instead, the appeal judges ruled that:
-
DRIPA confirms UNDRIP applies to B.C. law
-
Courts must use UNDRIP and DRIPA as an interpretive standard when assessing provincial legislation
-
DRIPA sets minimum benchmarks for how B.C. laws should measure up against UNDRIP
Justice Gail Dickson, writing for the majority, found that the conflict between UNDRIP and B.C.’s current mineral claims regime is clear, and that courts must examine whether other provincial laws also fall short of UNDRIP principles.
The ruling, the majority wrote, “affirms the interpretive lens through which B.C. laws must be viewed and the minimum standards against which they should be measured.”
Case Background: Mineral Staking System Challenged by Gitxaala and Ehattesaht
The case centres on B.C.’s online mineral claim-staking system, which allows claims to be registered on Indigenous territories with no up-front consultation.
-
Gitxaala Nation and Ehattesaht First Nation sued, arguing the system excludes First Nations and violates the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate.
-
In 2023, a B.C. Supreme Court judge agreed in part and ordered the government to design a new mineral tenure system in partnership with First Nations.
-
But that same decision refused to declare the regime inconsistent with DRIPA, on the basis that UNDRIP had not been directly incorporated into B.C. law.
The Court of Appeal has now reversed that key finding, directing that DRIPA is indeed legally meaningful and must shape how courts assess provincial legislation.
Majority vs. Dissent: Who Interprets UNDRIP in Canada?
Justice Dickson’s majority reasons frame DRIPA as a binding direction to both government and courts: UNDRIP is to be used when interpreting all B.C. laws, including resource and land-use regimes.
Justice Paul Riley, in dissent, sharply disagreed. He characterized DRIPA as primarily:
-
A “legislative reconciliation” project
-
A statutory mandate for the executive and legislative branches, not the judiciary
Riley argued that DRIPA assigns law reform and oversight to the B.C. government and legislature, not the courts. He cautioned that using DRIPA to strike down or rewrite legislation would push courts “outside of [their] proper role in our constitutional democracy.”
According to his view, the judicial branch is not explicitly asked by DRIPA to rule on conflicts between UNDRIP and B.C. law.
What DRIPA Does: Government-to-Government Vision in Law
DRIPA, adopted in 2019, commits B.C. to implementing UNDRIP and sets out:
-
An action plan to align provincial laws with Indigenous rights
-
A formal confirmation that UNDRIP applies to B.C. laws
-
A framework for shared or consent-based decision-making with Indigenous governments, including agreements that allow First Nations to share or exercise statutory powers
In practical terms, DRIPA is meant to move the province away from colonial, unilateral decision-making and toward government-to-government relationships grounded in Indigenous rights and title.
The Court of Appeal decision effectively says that commitment is not just political — it is legally enforceable.
Gitxaala Leadership: “Long Overdue” Step Toward Accountability
Gitxaala Chief Councillor Linda Innes welcomed the ruling as a major step forward, not only for Gitxaala but for other First Nations affected by B.C.’s mineral tenure regime.
She described the outcome as:
-
An “exciting victory” for communities impacted by outdated mining laws
-
A long-overdue move toward true government-to-government cooperation between the province and Indigenous nations
-
A signal that accountability and reconciliation require real legal consequences, not just promises
Innes also warned that Gitxaala will resist any effort by B.C. to water down DRIPA, whether through legislative change or an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Her message was clear: after generations of oppressive laws and silenced voices, Gitxaala will not step back from using legal tools like DRIPA to assert its rights.
Business and Province Weigh Impacts on Resource Development
The decision has triggered immediate concern from parts of the business and resource sector in B.C.
-
Premier David Eby said his government is reviewing the ruling and considering whether to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada or amend DRIPA.
-
Eby stressed that he believes elected representatives, not courts, should guide how B.C. implements UNDRIP, but added that the ruling will not halt government work to modernize the Mineral Tenure Act.
-
Industry groups, including representatives of mineral exploration and pulp and paper, voiced worry about increased requirements for First Nations consent and potential uncertainty for investors.
Business organizations said the province must act quickly to maintain confidence in B.C.’s investment climate, even as the legal landscape shifts toward stronger recognition of Indigenous rights.
Legal Experts: Ripple Effects Across B.C. – and Beyond
Constitutional scholar Dwight Newman, Canada Research Chair in Rights, Communities and Constitutional Law, said the ruling could trigger a wide-ranging re-examination of B.C. laws.
In his view, the implications are broad:
-
Courts may now treat all B.C. legislation as subject to reinterpretation in light of UNDRIP and DRIPA.
-
The decision may influence how other courts across Canada interpret UNDRIP, including under federal legislation.
-
It remains too early to know exactly how this will change consultation and consent standards in resource development, but the legal direction is significant.
Newman suggested the case could become a reference point nationally as governments and courts grapple with what it means to give real legal effect to UNDRIP.
Why This Matters in Northwestern Ontario
While DRIPA is a B.C. law, the Court of Appeal’s decision will be closely watched by First Nations in Northwestern Ontario and across the country.
-
It signals that implementation statutes for UNDRIP can be treated as binding legal tools, not merely policy guides.
-
It raises important questions for provinces like Ontario, where mining, forestry, energy, and infrastructure projects continue to affect Anishinaabe and other Indigenous territories.
-
It adds momentum to calls for stronger recognition of Indigenous jurisdiction, shared decision-making, and consent-based governance in resource development.
For communities from the West Coast to Lake Superior, this ruling is a powerful reminder that reconciliation is increasingly being defined not just in speeches and policy documents, but in courtrooms and legislation — with real consequences for land, water, and economic futures.
As this region prepares for the opportunities with the Ring of Fire, having actual meaningful economic reconciliation and cultural reconciliation plans for mining is key!
