Members of the Nuchatlaht First Nation and supporters rally outside B.C. Supreme Court before the start of an Indigenous land title case, in Vancouver, on Monday, March 21, 2022. The lawsuit brought by the First Nation against the provincial government seeks to reclaim part of its territory on Nootka Island, off the west coast of Vancouver Island. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

By The Canadian Press

B.C. Appeals Court sides with First Nation over Aboriginal title on Nootka Island

Apr 2, 2026 | 1:57 PM

VANCOUVER — The B.C. Court of Appeal has overturned a lower-court ruling after finding the judge used an “arbitrary boundary” to determine a First Nation’s Aboriginal title over a swath of Nootka Island off western Vancouver Island.

A three-judge panel says the B.C. Supreme Court made three legal errors when limiting the Nuchatlaht Nation’s claim over a 201 square kilometre portion of the island, finding the nation had met the test for “sufficient occupation” when the British Crown asserted sovereignty.

The Nuchatlaht’s lawyer, Jack Woodward, said in an interview Thursday that they are “jubilant” about the recognition of the ownership of their land.

He said the Nuchatlaht is a small, remote community that has been “somewhat ignored and neglected by the rest of society for a very long time.”

“They had to sit by helplessly and watch their ancestral heritage being industrialized and logged,” he said.

Health alerts

Sask NDP sound alarm over TB cases in northern Saskatchewan

33m ago

PYSANKY EASTER EGGS

"It's special to pass this on": Saskatchewan family celebrates Ukrainian Easter heritage

43m ago

Death Cafe

Death with a side of cake: Discussion group aims to open conversation about dying

1h ago

Woodward said the Nuchatlaht has always asserted its ownership over the area, but the provincial government has been managing Crown land like it with “only one objective, which is forestry.”

He said it’s been “heartbreaking” for the Nuchatlaht to see their ancient territory logged and now they’ve scored more than just a victory, likening it to winning an inheritance to which they were always entitled.

The 2024 lower court ruling found the Nuchatlaht had established title over coastal areas of the island, but the Appeal Court found the judge had relied too much on the findings of an anthropologist about the nation’s use of “remote inland” areas before and after 1846.

The ruling says the trial judge drew an “arbitrary boundary” in granting title over a portion of the area claimed, which wasn’t “based upon the Nuchatlaht’s manner of life, material resources, and technological abilities.”

It says the lower court’s adoption of the boundary didn’t reflect the nation’s use of the lands as evidenced by the presence of thousands of “culturally modified trees” dating back to the late 18th century.

The Appeal Court says the Nuchatlaht identified territory that it “exclusively” occupied and used for hunting, fishing and gathering activities, in addition to other evidence that established its “strong presence on or over the land claimed.” 


Woodward said the Nuchatlaht can now come up with a land-use plan that addresses the community’s needs for infrastructure, roads and housing.

“The Court of Appeal did what judges are supposed to do. They looked at the facts and they looked at the law and they applied the law to the facts,” he said. “You know, if you don’t get your uncle’s inheritance, you expect the judge to fix that. These people didn’t get their inheritance and the judges have fixed it. That’s the right thing to do.”

Respondents to the appeal included the federal and provincial governments and Western Forest Products Inc.

B.C. Attorney General Niki Sharma said in a statement that the province is “carefully reviewing the decision.”

“We will take the time needed to assess its implications and our legal options going forward,” the statement said.

The Ministry of Attorney General said the claim area in the case doesn’t involve any fee simple land.

Western Forest Products said in an emailed statement that the company is “in the process of reviewing it and will need time to fully assess any implications” of the court ruling.

No one from the federal government was immediately available to comment on the court decision.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 2, 2026

Darryl Greer, The Canadian Press