VANCOUVER — A widely distributed Substack article titled “Two former Attorneys General agree: your private property is not at risk as a result of Cowichan decision,” misses one key detail: the current Attorney General disagrees.
In a Tuesday post on his ‘Lotusland’ Substack, former NDP strategist and journalist Geoff Meggs describes a “collegial public forum” held three days earlier at a Presbyterian church near Victoria International Airport.
Organized by Green MLA Rob Botterell, an indigenous rights lawyer who once represented the Cowichan Tribes, the event drew roughly 100 attendees on a sunny long-weekend Saturday.
Panelists included former attorneys general Geoff Plant and Andrew Petter, Tsartlip First Nation member former Green Party leader Adam Olsen, Grand Chief Ed John, former Musqueam Chief Wendy Grant-John, and National Post columnist Terry Glavin.
Botterell posed the central question: Are private property owners at risk because of the August 2025 B.C. Supreme Court ruling in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada?
“No, I don’t think people should be worried,” Plant replied. “If you, like me, live in a house in a neighbourhood in a city, some nice tree growing in front of it, you’re not at risk. … There is nothing in Cowichan that is intended to unsettle what I’ll call ordinary private property ownership in British Columbia.”
Petter concurred: “I don’t think that private property is at all at risk as a result of this decision. I think the court will ultimately decide a way forward that will both respect Aboriginal title and respect fee simple and the two will, in fact, co-exist.”
The Cowichan Tribes won recognition of Aboriginal title over the site of their historic summer village, Tl’uqtinus, on Lulu Island in Richmond — land that includes roughly 700-800 acres, much of it now in private fee-simple ownership, affecting roughly 150 homeowners.
The Substack piece quotes Plant and Petter at length to argue that ordinary homeowners face “no immediate threat,” while big industrial projects may require consultation. It concludes with Botterell’s line, echoing former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer: “Let’s face it, we are all here to stay.”
What the article does not address is the position of the province’s current Attorney General of British Columbia.
BC NDP Attorney General Niki Sharma has repeatedly warned that the ruling creates “significant unintended consequences for fee simple private property rights in B.C.”
In her official statement last August, she announced B.C. would appeal and seek a stay to pause implementation.
“Our government is committed to protecting and upholding private property rights, while advancing the critical work of reconciliation,” she said. “This case is an example of why the Province prefers to resolve land claims through negotiation — where we can protect property rights directly — rather than risk considerable uncertainty through court decisions.”
In October 2025, Sharma was even more explicit: “Aboriginal title and private land title cannot coexist in their fullest form because each includes an exclusive right of occupancy.” She added that “to a landowner, there is nothing more important than security of title.”
And the acting Attorney General of British Columbia isn't alone in her views.
BC Premier David Eby has been equally forceful in highlighting the risks the ruling poses to private landowners. He has described the decision as “dramatic, overreaching and unhelpful,” stating that the judge made “some very serious errors.”
Eby has called the uncertainty created by the ruling “toxic” to reconciliation efforts, business confidence and the provincial economy, while noting it is “totally reasonable” that affected homeowners and businesses are anxious about its implications.
Eby has repeatedly emphasized that “owning private property with clear title is key to borrowing for a mortgage, economic certainty, and the real estate market,” and has pledged the government will “go to the wall to defend private property — full stop.” He has defended the province’s appeal and stay application as necessary to protect fee-simple titles while pursuing reconciliation.
The Cowichan decision is indeed under appeal by multiple parties, including the province, the federal government, the City of Richmond, and several First Nations with competing and overlapping land claims — and it is widely expected to reach the Supreme Court of Canada.
Still, for time being, the ruling’s description of aboriginal title as a “prior and senior” interest has raised practical questions about title insurance, lending, development approvals, and market values in affected areas.
Those are just some of the reasons the BC NDP government has committed itself to over $100 million in funding to backstop mortgages for homes in the affected area, which are likely unsecuritizable — meaning they no longer qualify for traditional financing — for the foreseeable future.
Appeals typically take years and if the original Cowichan Tribes v. Canada case is any indication, this appeal could take longer.
Regardless of the final outcome, which will be determined by the unelected courts, the tone at Victoria’s town hall over the weekend stood in stark contrast to one held in Richmond in fall 2025.
That's where residents directly affected by the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision raised many concerns over title uncertainty, estate complications, financing difficulties and ongoing tax burdens amidst what they described as plummeting equity values.
One can't help wonder if the so-called “public forum” would have been so “collegial” if it had been held in a location where people affected by the Cowichan decision were in attendance.