When the British Columbia Supreme Court confirmed on August 7, 2025, that the Cowichan Tribes hold Aboriginal title to part of Richmond, including fee-simple land, it added legal weight to a phrase that institutions across Canada and the U.S. have repeated for years: “unceded Indigenous land.” But Indigenous writers and advocates are now making clear that acknowledgment without accountability may do more harm than good.
The Cowichan ruling in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1490, made a legal finding many Indigenous peoples have asserted for generations. The land was never ceded, and governments cannot rely on historic grants to override title. At the same time, critics argue that land acknowledgments have become empty rituals that allow institutions to appear respectful while avoiding material obligations. As real estate markets react to the ruling and Indigenous communities call for restitution, the question becomes: if an institution says it is on unceded land, what responsibility follows?
Link to the full ruling:
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2025/2025bcsc1490/2025bcsc1490.html
Land acknowledgments gained widespread use in Canada after the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission report. In the U.S., the practice spread in the late 2010s. Schools, universities, governments, and nonprofits began opening meetings or events by naming the Indigenous nations whose land they occupy. Most of these statements describe the land as “traditional” or “unceded,” but few go further.
The Radical Copyeditor blog, in a post published in November 2023, outlined common flaws in these acknowledgments. The post notes that many acknowledgments are vague, generic, or centered on settler emotion instead of Indigenous sovereignty. It emphasizes that naming a harm without taking steps to repair it can feel like a second violation.
Read the full blog post:
How to Ensure that Your Land Acknowledgment Doesn’t Perpetuate Oppression
Legal recognition of unceded land changes the meaning of acknowledgment
The Cowichan case affirmed that the Cowichan Tribes hold Aboriginal title to parts of Tl’uqtinus, a traditional village site in what is now Richmond, British Columbia. That title exists despite the Crown issuing fee-simple grants and despite registration under the provincial Land Title Act. The court found those grants were invalid where they unjustifiably infringed Indigenous title.
This is not symbolic. It creates legal obligations for the Crown and casts doubt on the permanence of fee-simple titles in parts of British Columbia. Land once considered securely titled is now subject to negotiation. Landowners, municipalities, and institutions may need to revisit assumptions about ownership, governance, and consultation.
“Words mean things” — and acknowledgment without action invites scrutiny
The phrase “words mean things” has become a shorthand for a deeper warning: if institutions routinely say they are on unceded land but behave as if the land is theirs, their words may not just lose meaning — they may expose contradictions.
Repeated acknowledgments could become evidence in future disputes. While estoppel is unlikely to apply directly to Aboriginal title, consistent public statements may be used to show awareness or bad faith. Institutions that claim to honor Indigenous land while excluding Indigenous voices from land use, governance, or education could face legal or reputational consequences.
Matthew 5:37 offers a relevant principle: “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’” It warns against saying one thing while doing another. That is the moral and legal risk of acknowledgment without follow-up.
Indigenous voices call for an end to performative acknowledgment
The Radical Copyeditor blog explains that acknowledgments often become “a performance of awareness” rather than an act of responsibility. Many statements avoid naming the specific nation or fail to explain what “unceded” means. Some offer thanks without addressing the institution’s role in occupying or profiting from the land.
As Kim TallBear and other Indigenous scholars have pointed out, acknowledgment without land return or shared control can function as a delay tactic. It allows institutions to appear engaged without shifting power or resources.
In response, Indigenous advocates are asking for acknowledgments to come with commitments: to co-governance, to financial support, to land access, or to direct negotiations. The question they pose is not whether acknowledgment is appropriate, but whether it leads anywhere.
Real estate and development: market exposure follows legal shift
The Cowichan ruling unsettles long-standing real estate assumptions. In British Columbia, large parts of the province remain subject to unresolved land claims. If courts continue to affirm Aboriginal title, fee-simple owners may face legal risk.
Developers, municipalities, and title insurers will need to consider whether land acknowledgments imply knowledge of unresolved title. Governments may need to suspend or renegotiate development permits in areas under claim. Acknowledgments that once seemed like harmless formalities now exist in a context where Indigenous legal interests have enforceable weight.
Some analysts warn that land acknowledgments made during public hearings or planning processes could be cited in administrative law settings, especially if the acknowledging party later denies Indigenous interests. For developers and public planners, the risk is no longer theoretical.
How institutions can respond with integrity
Land acknowledgments do not need to disappear. But they must become honest and specific. The Radical Copyeditor offers a framework for institutions seeking to use them responsibly:
-
Name the nation whose land is being acknowledged
-
Specify whether the land is ceded or unceded
-
Clarify whether the statement is symbolic or reflects unresolved legal rights
-
Explain what action the institution is taking in response
-
Engage directly with the Indigenous nation(s) involved to determine what they want or expect
-
Refrain from making statements that imply consent or closure without engagement
This approach shifts acknowledgment from words to action. It creates an opportunity for education and accountability, but only if institutions are prepared to change policy, share authority, or return land.
Broader implications
The Cowichan decision, combined with rising Indigenous critique, signals a turning point. Land acknowledgments may no longer be accepted as goodwill gestures. Indigenous nations are asking for clarity and responsibility. Legal systems are beginning to affirm what acknowledgments claim to recognize.
Institutions that continue to speak about unceded land without aligning their actions may not only appear inconsistent. They may be called to answer for what they said, and what they failed to do.
Conclusion
The future of land acknowledgments depends on whether institutions are willing to treat them as real. In a context where Aboriginal title has legal standing, words have consequences. They can build trust or expose hypocrisy. Indigenous nations are no longer asking to be named — they are asking to be heard, respected, and engaged. The land is not just acknowledged. It is claimed, and in many cases, it is theirs.
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read) Summary
The 2025 Cowichan decision (August 7) confirms that Aboriginal title over unceded land is legally enforceable. At the same time, Indigenous critics argue that institutional land acknowledgments have become symbolic performances with no follow-up. The Radical Copyeditor blog calls for acknowledgments to be specific, accountable, and connected to material action. As courts and Indigenous nations pursue title recognition and restitution, real estate stakeholders and public institutions must align their words with their policies. Matthew 5:37 — “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’” — now applies in full.
This does not constitute legal advice. Readers should speak with licensed attorneys about the legal and institutional risks related to land acknowledgments and Aboriginal title.
Tags
Land acknowledgments, Cowichan ruling, Indigenous land rights, real estate law, performative allyship
Subscribe to ReligiousLiberty.TV
Stay informed about Indigenous land rights, religious freedom, and key court decisions. Subscribe now at https://religiouslibertytv.substack.com for original reporting and legal analysis delivered to your inbox.
Source: ReligiousLibertyTV on Substack
