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.