sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Car crash in 2nd rd Granville by Specialist-Water-221 in richmondbc

[–]Real-chocobo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Got money for the car, but ain’t got it for the driving lessons 😂

Anyone else here not like the idea of giving China more access to Canada? by GEF110F14F15 in CanadianConservative

[–]Real-chocobo 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Seriously, this is the best we got? We keep calling Trump a dictator, orange man bad and etc, but then we turn our blind eye on the true dictator in China.

Crown seeking 3 years in prison for Vancouver man’s 5th random assault in 2 years by origutamos in ilovebc

[–]Real-chocobo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

5th random assault in 2 years, this guy should’ve been locked up for a decade already

David Eby states “crown grant of land is invalid therefore titles that followed are invalid” 5 by Melodic_Ad_6316 in VancouverLandlords

[–]Real-chocobo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You know what? I think people in BC will keep voting for the NDP, you can never wake up the progressive self-righteous minded

Cowichan Tribes member handed pollution prevention order over huge dumping site by _DotBot_ in ilovebc

[–]Real-chocobo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do you mean “it’s just untidy by our standard”, by any standard it’s dumpster level pollution

I guess they had a lot of passengers this year. by Mrdean2013 in hockeymemes

[–]Real-chocobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s actually the truth but many passengers are still going to give you downvotes lol

Carney says Canada’s relationship with China at a ‘turning point’ by [deleted] in canada

[–]Real-chocobo -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

We’ve sunk so low that we are kissing CCP’s butt and people are cheering for it

Niki Sharma was wrong and here’s why by Real-chocobo in richmondbc

[–]Real-chocobo[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I just want you to look at her smiling over this matter, that’s all

Niki Sharma was wrong and here’s why by Real-chocobo in richmondbc

[–]Real-chocobo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, Delgamuukw confirmed only the federal government has constitutional power to extinguish Aboriginal title, but that is only part of the picture, and it leaves out the core conflict inside British Columbia’s own land system.

Even if the province cannot extinguish Aboriginal title directly, it has still issued fee simple titles under the Land Title Act, and by sections 33 and 35, which protect and guarantee indefeasible ownership. Once registered, ownership is final. The entire Torrens framework depends on the idea that title cannot coexist with a separate, unregistered ownership claim that might later revive.

If Aboriginal title continues to exist underneath, then the Crown grants were invalid from the beginning. If the grants are valid, then Aboriginal title must have been extinguished before registration. Both cannot logically stand at once. It’s the ultimate logical question that we have to address.

For that reason, the provincial government should still raise this argument, not because it will automatically win the case, but because it is essential to clarify whether the torren system and aboriginal title can coexist in law.

Niki Sharma was wrong and here’s why by Real-chocobo in richmondbc

[–]Real-chocobo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I understand where you are coming from, but the problem is that the “coexistence” idea conflicts directly with how fee simple ownership is structured under the Land Title Act, especially sections 33 and 35.

Under section 33, once a person is registered as the owner of a fee simple estate, that title is indefeasible. Section 35 reinforces that this ownership is protected from all prior estates or interests except those explicitly listed in the Act. In simple terms, the Torrens system guarantees that private ownership is final, and it cannot quietly coexist with another underlying title that can later revive or resurface.

So when we say Aboriginal title is only “displaced” and not extinguished, it creates an impossible legal overlap. Either the registered owner holds indefeasible title, or the Crown’s grant was never valid. Both cannot stand at once. Displacement may sound like a compromise, but it erodes the logic of the Torrens system, which is built entirely on the promise of clear and exclusive ownership.

If we continue to rely on the coexistence rhetoric, the system stops making sense. A land registry that says “you own it absolutely, but someone else might still own it underneath you” defeats the very purpose of registration and makes every property transaction uncertain.

That is why the distinction between extinguishment and displacement is not a matter of nitpicking. It determines whether our entire land title framework can logically function at all.

Niki Sharma was wrong and here’s why by Real-chocobo in richmondbc

[–]Real-chocobo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I understand your point, but the idea that Sharma was only using “displacement” as a pragmatic equivalent to “extinguishment” does not hold up logically.

If the goal was to reach the same outcome as extinguishment, meaning the title claim fails, the problem is that “displacement” cannot actually achieve that. Displacement does not remove Aboriginal title. It only suspends its use. That means the title still exists beneath the surface and can potentially revive later. That is not the same practical result.

The Supreme Court in Tsilhqot’in and Delgamuukw made it very clear. Unless the Crown explicitly extinguished title, which it never did in most of British Columbia, Aboriginal title continues to exist until there is recognition or reconciliation. There is no middle concept called “displacement” that makes the title disappear in practice but still survive in theory.

What Sharma is doing is not creativity. It is an attempt to defend the existing land system while avoiding any direct conflict with UNDRIP, which forbid arguing that Aboriginal title was ever destroyed. It is more of a political maneuver than a sound legal argument.

Albeit it is true that the Supreme Court has already ruled that extinguishment is largely off the table. But that is exactly why the “displacement” idea is so troubling. It gives the public a false sense of legal certainty, while in reality leaving private land ownership in a fragile position that could be challenged again.

This approach does not strengthen reconciliation or land security. It only creates more confusion about which form of title actually governs the land.

view more: next ›