so, the court is arguing that it's own jurisdiction stems from the indian act, and that's the point that i'd argue is wrong, because the land was never ceded. it was occupied. as such, the indian act is the wrong type of law to use. they should rather be using british imperial law, which stems from roman precedents and allows the occupied nation to administer it's own laws.

we have a very clear precedent of this in canada, actually. it's called quebec.

by enforcing the indian act on unceded land in british columbia, the court is advancing the colonial project. the supreme court ought to reverse this.

my previous statement about the duty to consult applying to traditional law relies on the band council leadership accepting it, as that is the relevant body under canadian law. as there is a conflict here - something i knew, but forgot - that wouldn't be applicable, in context. the company's argument that it consulted the band council and sought it's approval would essentially be correct.

but, there is no legal basis for the band council to be making these decisions, as the land was never ceded or formally brought under the control of the indian act in the first place. for the supreme court to rule otherwise would be to argue for a unilateral annexation, which is something that is actually even inconsistent with imperial law, in this country.

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/22/2019BCSC2264cor1.htm