The Court upheld the constitutional validity of British Columbia's heritage legislation, without deciding every subsequent heritage permit or Indigenous rights issue.
The dispute involved An Interfor logging plan involved land containing culturally modified trees of significance to the Kitkatla Band. The British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act protected heritage objects but permitted a ministerial alteration permit. An initial judicial review found procedural problems in a permit process; the appeal to the Supreme Court addressed the constitutional validity of the provincial provisions.
The central question was Whether provincial Heritage Conservation Act restrictions and ministerial permit discretion involving culturally modified trees were constitutionally valid under section 92 property and civil rights or improperly legislated in the exclusive federal field relating to Indigenous peoples.
The Court assessed the purpose and effects of the challenged provisions and concluded their pith and substance concerned generally applicable heritage preservation and provincial property/civil rights. The protective scheme and permit discretion didn't single out Indigenous peoples or regulate status or condition as Indigenous persons. The constitutional holding was expressly limited to the division of powers question on the evidence.
Disposition: Appeal dismissed; challenged British Columbia heritage conservation provisions held intra vires the province.
Primary source: Supreme Court of Canada, Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), 2002 SCC 31. Full official reasons.