Judge rejects east Richmond company's bid to reopen Cowichan Tribes ruling

A chunk of Montrose Properties falls into the Cowichan land claim.

The B.C. Supreme Court’s Cowichan Tribes decision won’t be reopened and a Richmond company won’t be allowed to be a party to it. This was the decision of Justice Barbara Young after Montrose Properties made an application to reopen her 2025 ruling that declared Aboriginal title over some of their properties. The Cowichan Tribes decision recognized Aboriginal title over about 800 acres of land in south Richmond, a large chunk of which falls on Montrose Properties.

This decision, in the case between the Cowichan Tribes and the governments of Canada, B.C. and Richmond, was handed down last August after a multi-year trial. No private landowners were party to the case despite an application from the government of Canada to inform any private landowners within the claim area. This was rejected by the judge at the time, although the ruling didn’t prevent defendants from providing “informal notice.”

Montrose applied in January to have the case reopened to determine whether it was “appropriate” for the court to declare Aboriginal title over the Montrose lands when they weren’t a party to the case. Other issues Montrose challenged were the application of provincial laws on land where Aboriginal title exists, how Aboriginal and fee-simple titles will be exercised, the finding that it was “unjustified” to find fee-simple titles infringed on Aboriginal title, and that Aboriginal title wasn’t extinguished by fee-simple titles. Young noted four out of Montrose’s five points to reopen the case were already dealt with during the 513-day trial.

“While Montrose did not participate in the trial, the fact is these issues have been fully canvassed over the course of a lengthy trial by well-resourced parties,” Young wrote. Young noted, when considering Montrose’s arguments, “finality is not to come at the expense of fairness.” However, she added, “this is not a case where the trial was tainted by fraud or dishonesty, or where fresh new evidence, previously unavailable, impeaches the original result.”

Young agreed with the plaintiffs that reopening the case to add in Montrose would set a precedent to relitigate decisions that have already been made. Rather, the avenue to change the decision is in the appeals court, she added. “I agree with the plaintiffs that allowing this application could open the floodgates for numerous other private landowners and persons with commercial or other interests in the Cowichan Title Lands to seek to join the litigation,” Young wrote.

“This sort of sprawling process, long after trial has concluded, would be inefficient, disruptive for the parties, and would not enhance the integrity of the administration of justice.” 📣 Got an opinion on this story or any others in Richmond? Send us a letter or email your thoughts or story tips to [email protected].

📲 To stay updated on Richmond news, sign up for our daily headline newsletter. 💬 Words missing in article? Your adblocker might be preventing hyperlinked text from appearing.