**BC Premier's DRIPA Amendments Ignite Judicial Role Debate**
British Columbia’s DRIPA amendments spark debate on judicial independence and Indigenous rights. Recent court rulings interpreting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) have prompted provincial leaders to propose legislative changes, raising concerns from legal organizations about court roles in statutory interpretation. This development highlights tensions between executive intent, judicial authority, and UNDRIP implementation in Canadian law.
Background on DRIPA and Key Court Decisions
Enacted in 2019, DRIPA requires British Columbia to align provincial laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), establishing a framework for reconciliation and Indigenous self-determination[1][3][6]. The 2021 Interpretation Amendment Act further mandates that all provincial enactments be construed consistently with DRIPA[3]. These laws have faced judicial scrutiny in recent landmark cases.
Cowichan Tribes Aboriginal Title Ruling
In August 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court recognized Aboriginal title held by the Cowichan Tribes over lands in Richmond, deeming certain fee simple interests as unjustified infringements under section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982[original]. The court ruled that Aboriginal title and private fee simple estates can coexist, obligating the government to negotiate arrangements within 18 months. This decision underscores principles of Aboriginal title priority and the duty to consult.
Gitxaala and Ehattesaht Mineral Tenure Challenge
The BC Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision in December 2025, invalidated aspects of the Mineral Tenure Act for failing to consult the Gitxaala and Ehattesaht First Nations before online mineral rights registrations[3][original]. The majority held that DRIPA incorporates UNDRIP with immediate legal effect, making consultation mandatory. The dissenting judge argued that courts overstep by adjudicating UNDRIP consistency, reserving such alignment for the legislature[3].
Government Response and Proposed Amendments
Premier David Eby criticized these rulings for creating confusion over DRIPA’s scope and reconciliation’s meaning, asserting that reconciliation involves governments, not courts[original][4]. He announced plans to amend DRIPA to clarify legislative intent, limit judicial involvement, and protect private property rights while upholding constitutional obligations[original][2]. Eby emphasized that DRIPA has not hindered projects but affirmed ongoing reconciliation duties.
Legal Community and First Nations Reactions
The Law Society of British Columbia warned that amendments restricting court access could undermine judicial independence, a core constitutional function in interpreting statutes[original]. The Canadian Bar Association echoed these concerns in January 2026. First Nations leaders, including the Heiltsuk Tribal Council and BC Assembly of First Nations, opposed changes, arguing they erode trust, stability, and co-developed progress under DRIPA[original][5].
These events illustrate ongoing conflicts in implementing UNDRIP through domestic legislation, balancing Indigenous rights, judicial review, and resource development in British Columbia’s legal framework.
Source: British Columbia premier’s commitment to amend DRIPA sparks judicial independence concerns
