What the Cowichan Decision Means for Vancouver Real Estate.

In August 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (AG), 2025 BCSC 1490, a ruling that has sparked significant discussion across BC and Canada. While the case specifically concerns the Cowichan Tribes’ Aboriginal title claims, its implications reach far beyond the courtroom and into the Vancouver real-estate market. Here’s what buyers, sellers, and developers need to know.

What Happened

The Cowichan Tribes successfully established Aboriginal title over certain lands, including submerged areas in Richmond. The Court ruled that some Crown land grants (fee-simple titles) unjustifiably infringed on this title. Importantly, the Court clarified that fee-simple ownership does not automatically extinguish Aboriginal title. Instead, the two forms of ownership can coexist, but rights must be reconciled.

Private homeowners were not directly affected by this ruling, meaning current titles remain valid—for now. However, the decision raises important questions about how Aboriginal title interacts with private land ownership in BC going forward.

Why This Matters for Buyers and Sellers

1. Title Certainty Is Shifting

For decades, property buyers in BC have relied on the Land Title Act to guarantee the validity of registered titles. The Cowichan decision challenges the assumption that registered fee-simple ownership is entirely secure.

This means buyers and sellers may need to consider additional due diligence, especially for properties in or near Indigenous territories, waterfront areas, or older Crown-granted parcels. Title insurance providers may also adjust their policies to reflect this new layer of risk.

2. Geographic Hotspots to Watch

While most Vancouver neighborhoods may not feel immediate effects, certain areas carry higher uncertainty:

• Waterfront and foreshore properties
• Large redevelopment or assembly sites
• Areas within or near traditional Indigenous territories

For example, redevelopment projects along the Fraser River or in Coal Harbour could require additional review or consultation to ensure compliance with Aboriginal title considerations.

3. Implications for Buyers

• Expect questions about a property’s history, its original Crown grants, and any overlapping Indigenous claims.
• Longer conditional periods may be requested for properties in areas considered higher risk.
• Title insurance may require extra endorsements for certain parcels.

By being aware of these considerations, buyers can make more informed decisions and protect their investment.

4. Implications for Sellers

• Sellers should be prepared to provide enhanced disclosures or documentation that reassures buyers.
• Properties in higher-risk areas may experience slightly longer sales timelines or pricing adjustments.
• Transparency about potential risks will help maintain buyer confidence and smooth transactions.

5. Implications for Developers

For developers and large-scale assemblers, the decision introduces an important new layer:

• Projects may involve parcels with overlapping Indigenous claims, requiring negotiation and consultation.
• Municipal approvals, zoning, and waterfront access may face additional scrutiny.
• The Court emphasized reconciliation, opening the door for co-governance or shared-use frameworks in some cases.

Understanding these nuances can help developers plan projects more effectively and mitigate delays or legal challenges.

Final Thoughts

For Vancouver’s real-estate market, the Cowichan decision does not immediately invalidate private property ownership. However, it introduces a new dimension of due diligence—particularly for waterfront properties, redevelopment sites, and lands near Indigenous territories.

Buyers, sellers, and developers alike should stay informed about potential risks and plan transactions carefully. By taking the time to understand property history, consultation requirements, and title implications, clients can proceed with confidence—even in this evolving legal landscape.

This landmark case is a reminder that while property ownership remains strong, thoughtful planning and awareness are now more important than ever.