Speed, Certainty and Trust: Why Negotiation must lead the Response to the Cowichan Tribes Land-title Ruling

Speed, certainty and trust: why negotiation must lead the response to the Cowichan Tribes land-title ruling.

The recent decision that the Cowichan Tribes hold Aboriginal title to some 7½ km² of land in the City of Richmond has sent a shock through homeowners, businesses, municipal government and provincial authorities alike.

One of the most urgent questions now is:

“How do we fix this — and do so as quickly, fairly, and with least damage?”

A court appeal may feel instinctive, especially given the stakes, but the better route is to negotiate. Here’s why.

1. Court appeals generate delay, uncertainty and economic damage

Municipal leaders in Richmond have signaled strong intent to appeal the ruling. For example, the mayor calls the decision “one of the most consequential rulings of any court in Canadian history.”

Yet even if the appeal succeeds, the timeline may stretch years: as one report notes, the appeal might take one to two years, and then a further case to the Supreme Court of Canada another two to four years.

Meanwhile, homeowners, land-owners and businesses are living in limbo.

The consequences are real:

• Banks are pulling back mortgages because title is unclear.

• Estates cannot sell inherited properties because prospective buyers can’t get financing.

• Infrastructure, growth-planning and business investment are being stalled because land-ownership is uncertain.

By contrast, a negotiated settlement can start to restore certainty faster: mapping out ownership, providing compensation or transfers, clarifying rights, rather than waiting for layered legal proceedings to run their course.

2. Negotiation offers flexibility that courts can’t

Courts rule on law, and what the law says is binding. But they don’t necessarily craft optimal solutions for all the parties: affected homeowners, the First Nation, local government, provincial & federal governments. A negotiated approach can allow creative solutions: compensation, land-swaps, joint governance, phased transitions, protective mechanisms for private property while respecting Indigenous title.

In the published reports of this case, the court explicitly held that private property rights may unjustifiably infringe Aboriginal title and therefore need to be resolved through negotiation, litigation or purchase.

The fact the ruling itself points toward negotiation underscores its importance.

Negotiation also allows parties to address fear, uncertainty and transition smoothly: clarity on how much land is affected, what the protections for homeowners are, how future uses will be managed, how the broader regional economy will be safeguarded. Courts do not manage stakeholders in that way.

3. The public, property-owners and politicians are in fear mode — negotiation can help manage that

Many homeowners say they are in limbo over land title. Politicians are hearing that fear loud and clear. Some are saying private property and Indigenous title cannot coexist — and are calling for the highest court to step in.

But raising the stakes does not allay the fear of property owners; it deepens it, because it pushes everything into the future.

A negotiated process can help reduce that anxiety: by providing early and transparent engagement, by giving homeowners a window into what is happening, by mapping timelines, by giving assurances of what will happen in the meantime (title insurance, phased remediation, government-backed guarantees).

In short: it gives people something rather than waiting years for a ruling.

4. Reconciliation demands co-operation, not confrontation

While the reaction in some quarters is to double-down on defending “fee-simple” title at all costs, that approach misses the broader national and provincial goal of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The court’s finding reflects that underlying Indigenous rights have real weight and cannot simply be swept aside. In that sense, negotiation is the tool of reconciliation: it recognizes rights, seeks accommodation, builds relationships, permits shared outcomes.

Litigation, by contrast, tends to entrench positions, generate resentment, produce winner-loser outcomes, and often leaves the root issues unresolved. If the goal is to move forward together, to live in a stable society, negotiation is not just preferable — it’s critical.

5. Practical proposal: negotiation now

Here’s what the parties should consider:

• Immediate formation of a “working table” including Cowichan Tribes, provincial & federal governments, City of Richmond (and other affected municipalities), homeowner and business representatives.

• A negotiated interim regime: while final resolution is crafted, provide interim protections for homeowners (e.g., mortgage stability, title insurance protections, disclosure regimes).

• Mapping and transparency: which lands are under claim, what uses are affected, what options exist for compensation or land-swap.

• A cost-sharing fund to support impacted property owners (especially small-scale homeowners) for legal and transitional costs.

• A timeline with milestones: negotiation milestones (e.g., within 6 months: identify catalogue of land; within 12 months: interim protections; within 18–24 months: draft settlement).

• Communications plan: frequent updates to homeowners, businesses, municipalities to keep confidence up and panic down.

The fear is palpable. Private property owners, investors, municipalities are staring at months and years of uncertainty.

Politicians reflexively want to fight this in court. But the smarter path is negotiation — sooner, not later. Negotiation offers the chance to preserve stability, protect livelihoods, clarify ownership, honour Indigenous rights, and avoid dragging thousands of stakeholders through years of appeals.

We should not wait for the courts to hand down the “final answer.” We should instead engage, negotiate, and resolve. The stakes are too high, and the cost of inaction or delay is too great.

Jerome Dickey