The British Columbia Court of Appeal has just released it groundbreaking decision in Gitxaala v. BC (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430. It’s a long decision, and we will post a more detailed blog, but for now, here’s the decision:
- BC statutes must be interpreted consistently with UNDRIP. The Interpretation Act imposes a “rebuttable presumption of consistency” with UNDRIP “akin to the presumption of conformity”.
- Canada’s domestic laws (meaning statutes and the common law) must be interpreted consistently with UNDRIP, given Canada’s obligations and solemn commitment to apply and implement UNDRIP in domestic law, as confirmed by Canada’s Declaration Act. (BC’s Declaration Act also gives UNDRIP immediate effect as an interpretive aid relating to the laws of British Columbia.)
- Any inconsistency between UNDRIP and laws of British Columbia may be adjudicated by a court. BC’s Declaration Act imposes a positive obligation on the Crown, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, to take all steps, methods, and means (measures) necessary to ensure that British Columbia laws confirm with the binding international rights, obligations, and principles aggregated in UNDRIP.
- UNDRIP can and does inform the interpretation of the common law duty to consult arising under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The impact of this case on the interpretation of laws will still need to be unpacked, but the presumption of conformity to UNDRIP applies to all laws in Canada.
We remain proud to represent Gitxaala Nation as it continues to press for meaningful steps toward reconciliation, consistent with minimum standards affirmed by UNDRIP.
Lisa C. Fong, KC and Michael Ng