The New Brunswick Court of Appeal ruled that an Indigenous group cannot claim Aboriginal title over private property, stating that such a declaration would undermine private property rights and reconciliation efforts in Canada.

This decision contrasts with a recent ruling in British Columbia that recognized Aboriginal title on privately owned lands.

New Brunswick Court Ruling on Indigenous Land Claims
Overview of the Ruling
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal has ruled that the Wolastoqey Nation cannot seek a declaration of Aboriginal title over privately owned land.
This decision emphasizes the protection of private property rights and suggests that such claims could hinder reconciliation efforts between Indigenous groups and non-Indigenous Canadians.

Key Points of the Decision
Private Land Exemption:
The court determined that Aboriginal title cannot coexist with private property rights. This means that the Wolastoqey Nation can only pursue claims for Aboriginal title on Crown land, not on privately owned land.
Impact on Landowners: The ruling alleviates concerns for private landowners, particularly industrial firms, who feared losing their properties. The court's decision supports the idea that private ownership is secure against Aboriginal title claims.

Compensation Considerations: While the court ruled against title claims on private land, it acknowledged that the province may need to compensate the Wolastoqey Nation for lost land rights in the broader claim area.

Comparison with Other Jurisdictions
This ruling contrasts sharply with a recent decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court, which recognized Aboriginal title on private lands. This difference highlights the varying interpretations of Aboriginal rights across Canada and raises questions about the future of land claims in different provinces.

Next Steps for the Wolastoqey Nation
The Wolastoqey Nation may still pursue claims for Aboriginal title on publicly owned lands and could seek financial compensation for the private lands they believe were wrongfully taken.
The court's decision does not end their claims but shifts the focus to negotiations and potential compensation rather than direct ownership of private properties.