The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the Nuchatlaht's appeal in The Nuchatlaht v. British Columbia, 2026 BCCA 137, and replaced a limited trial declaration with Aboriginal title to the entire area described in the Nuchatlaht's pleadings on Nootka Island. The judgment was released April 2, 2026. Its significance extends to the treatment of historic boundaries, ethnographic evidence and culturally modified trees when courts consider occupation before the assertion of British sovereignty.
The trial judge had recognized title over selected areas near the coast and where culturally modified trees were found. The appeal court found that approach too site-specific. Evidence of territorial ownership, regular resource use and cedar harvesting had to be considered together, including evidence from after 1846 capable of illuminating earlier patterns. The court also rejected a 100-metre elevation line as unsupported by the evidence. It recognized title to the pleaded area and held that the provincial Forest Act and Park Act do not apply there on the statutory analysis addressed in the judgment.
This is a decision about Aboriginal title, not an independent ruling on copyright or ownership of museum collections. It does, however, show how historical records and cultural practices may carry legal weight when interpreted in their broader social and geographical setting. Binder has now reviewed the court's full reasons. See the original judgment for the precise boundaries, evidentiary treatment and limitations. Read the BC Court of Appeal judgment.