By Lily Cuthbertson, Chris Macleod, Jessica Proudfoot
On December 5, 2025, the BC Court of Appeal released its decision in Gitxaala v. British Columbia, 2025 BCCA 430. In this significant legal decision, the majority:
- rejected the lower court’s 2023 narrow interpretation of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (the Declaration Act) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP),
- found that the Declaration Act incorporates UNDRIP into the positive law of BC with immediate legal effect,[1] and
held that UNDRIP serves as an interpretive lens and sets minimum standards for the consistency of BC laws, although it does not itself create new substantive rights. [2]
Significance for Indigenous Nations in BC and Beyond
This decision marks a significant development for Indigenous rights in BC and has the potential to shape legal strategies and outcomes for Indigenous Nations across the province. By confirming that UNDRIP forms part of BC law and guides the interpretation of provincial statutes, the Court of Appeal provides Indigenous Nations with a stronger legal basis to challenge laws and policies that conflict with UNDRIP and to demand meaningful consultation, especially regarding mineral claims and resource development.
The decision may also inform legal approaches in other provinces and territories that face comparable questions about resource governance, especially where those provinces and territories have UNDRIP legislation. For example, in the Yukon, the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in and the First Nation of Na‑Cho Nyäk Dun have each filed separate lawsuits challenging the territorial government’s mineral regime, citing longstanding concerns about inadequate consultation, failures to uphold treaty commitments, and the effects of intensive mineral activity on their lands and waters. Both Nations raise issues about how governments authorize and oversee mining projects and how those decisions intersect with treaty rights and land use planning.[3]
While those cases focus on treaty obligations, the reasoning in Gitxaala, particularly its approach to statutory interpretation, consultation obligations, and the relationship between mineral systems and UNDRIP, could serve as persuasive precedent for courts considering similar questions in other jurisdictions.
Limits and Uncertainties
The long-term impact of the decision remains uncertain. Premier Eby has indicated that the provincial government may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada or pursue amendments to the Declaration Act. [4] This means that future court decisions or legislative changes could alter the legal effect of UNDRIP in BC.
Background
In this case, the Gitxaala and Ehattesaht Nations challenged BC’s online mineral claims system. They argued that the automated online registry system allowing “free miners” to register mineral claims on their territories without prior consultation was inconsistent with the Crown’s duties under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the honour of the Crown, and their rights recognized under the Declaration Act and UNDRIP. [5]
In 2023, the BC Supreme Court held that issuing mineral claims without consultation breached the Crown’s s. 35 duty to consult. The Court issued related declarations but suspended them for 18 months to allow BC time to design a system that provides for a consultation process prior to its issuance of mineral claims. However, the chambers judge also held that the Declaration Act did not implement UNDRIP into BC law, that UNDRIP remained a non‑binding international instrument, and that s. 3 of the Declaration Act did not create justiciable rights.[6]
At the Court of Appeal, a 2-1 majority overturned the latter part of the decision, holding that the chambers judge took an “unduly narrow approach” and that, properly interpreted, the Declaration Act does incorporate UNDRIP into the positive law of BC with immediate legal effect. [7] The Court of Appeal emphasized that this incorporation does not create new substantive legal rights. Rather, the Declaration Act affirms UNDRIP as the interpretive lens and the minimum standards against which BC laws must be assessed. [8]
The Court of Appeal further held that s. 3 of the Declaration Act imposes a statutory duty on the Crown to consult and cooperate to address inconsistencies between UNDRIP and BC laws, and that such questions of consistency are justiciable. Applying this framework, the Court of Appeal found BC’s Mineral Claims Regime inconsistent with Article 32(2) of UNDRIP. [9]
How Woodward & Company Lawyers LLP Can Support
Woodward & Company Lawyers LLP works closely with Indigenous Nations across Canada on a wide array of matters, including mineral tenure, consultation, and governance. If your Nation is considering how the Gitxaala decision may apply to your lands, title, or strategic priorities, our team is ready to support you with focused legal analysis and practical guidance.
[1] Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430, at para 7. [2] Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430 at paras 7, & 122-132. [3] CBC, “This is not acceptable,’ says Yukon First Nation suing territorial, federal governments,” see here. [4] CBC, “Eby says BC may revise DRIPA legislation, worries court is ‘in driver’s seat,’” see here. [5] Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430, at para 5. [6] Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430, at para 6. [7] Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430, at para 7. [8] Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430, at paras 7 & 144. [9] Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430, at paras 7, 183-198, & 200.