it's frequently glossed over in schools, but one of the major causes of the american revolution (1776, 13 years after the royal proclamation) was that americans didn't like the idea of not being able to buy lands from the indians in what was at the time the ohio river area. the royal proclamation is still canadian law, but it was actually directed mostly at american settlers around the appalachians.

the american state never allowed it's settlers to buy allodial title from the indians, but it didn't see the need to sign treaties or uphold roman imperial precedents the way the british did. it just killed them. stealing land from the indians was not really against the law in the united states the way it was and still is in canada.

in fact, the british crown frequently had to insert itself as a source of law in restricting the activity of british settlers in canada. there are episodes where the british police came down hard on british settlers in northern ontario (at the time called upper canada) and it eventually created the rcmp for the express purpose of protecting the indians from canadian settlers. the british realized that canada was virtually uninhabitable and the only way to protect it from american encroachment was to sign treaties with the indians, so it went well out of it's way to stop canadian settlers from stealing indian lands and aggressively prosecuted canadian settlers when it broke the law. it's a very different history in the canadian prairies than the american ones.

the prairies were eventually settled not by british settlers but by scandinavian and ukrainian settlers, and in some cases by scottish settlers, who didn't behave the same way as the british did, for some reason.

there was a change in mentality after confederation in 1867, which is why british columbia is not under treaty. that change in mentality was towards a more american approach, without abandoning british law. the provincial authorities in british columbia just broke the law.

well, now they're going to have to be held accountable for it.

this isn't a grounds for appeal, and they are admitting they don't have one. they just don't like the decision.

i haven't read the lengthy ruling, but british columbia is unique in canada because most of the province, including all of vancouver, isn't under treaty.

the treaties themselves are controversial. it is argued by some that they haven't been upheld, or that they've been abused, that the terms have been ignored or changed or even that the indigenous leaders didn't really sign or didn't understand what they signed. there is truth in all of this. they are nonetheless what a court in canada analyses when looking at indigenous land claims. this is a map from the canadian government:

quebec doesn't need a treaty under canadian law because it was conquered by the british from the french in the french and indian war, ending with the royal proclamation of 1763. newfoundland wasn't a part of canada at all until 1949 and the last indigenous person on the island supposedly died in 1829, many centuries after the native newfoundlanders, the beothuk, first made contact with the vikings. nunavut, since 1999, is currently a semi-autonomous region that is largely self-governed by the inuit, and includes a lot of northern quebec and labrador. there have also been some "modern treaties" that have carved out a small number of areas in bc as semi-autonomous, self-governing indigenous regions.

but the reality is that most of bc simply isn't under treaty, which means that the only legal claim that canada has to bc at all is the 1763 proclamation itself, which orders that only the federal government is permitted to negotiate land cessation. that means that the land legally still belongs to the indigenous groups, if a court awards them aboriginal title. 

if the argument by the province is that the court ruling claims that property awarded in fee simple was awarded illegally and that creates problems for the province, my understanding of the situation would be that that is probably correct - that the ruling would in fact invalidate any land parceled out because it wasn't ceded under canadian/british law (which in context is actually based on roman imperial law. this is a precedent that goes back thousands of years.). that is actually what the ruling says. that's correct. 

the ruling probably orders the government to develop a treaty between the indigenous group, and as i understand it there were a couple of competing claims, but only this one by the cowichan met a series of tests determined in canadian case law to establish aboriginal title.

the consequence is that the federal government is going to have to sign a treaty with the cowichan nation. that treaty might result in ceding the land, for a sum. however, if the cowichan nation wants the land back and won't sell it, the government is in fact going to have to tear up the existing fiefdoms that it awarded, because they were awarded to land it didn't own.

is this land even a part of canada at all? well, what the 1763 proclamation says, and the united states was a part of britain at the time, is that settlers aren't allowed to buy land from the indians, only the king is. this was a land grab by the british king. 

i suppose it would be up to washington whether it wants to respect the proclamation or not.

frankly, i don't see any reason why the cowichan should be forced into a treaty relationship with canada in 2025, instead of with washington or russia or china or mexico. it's their land. nobody else in canada except the government is allowed to buy it. that doesn't mean they have to sell it, and it doesn't mean they have to sell it to canada.

yes, that is what the ruling implies, and this inevitable outcome has been clear for a long time. there are large swaths of bc that were simply stolen, and that is actually not permitted under canadian law or under british imperial law. the british legal system never allowed settlers to just show up and steal land from the natives - not in america, not in africa, not in india, not in australia, not anywhere. you could buy land. you could conquer land. you could settle land. you couldn't just steal it.

that is what canada did in bc and it is not lawful under imperial law and there will have to be eventual consequences. this is the start. there's much more to come.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/cowichans-lawyer-says-bc-must-reconcile-property-rights-with-land-claim-ruling/