OK, apologies, really not trying to drag this out RR, but this description from another Court Case in New Brunswick might explain better what I'm trying to say:
"Notably, the court concluded that Aboriginal title could be declared over privately owned lands held in fee simple. Having come to this conclusion, the court stressed that any resolution of conflicting land interests would fall on the Crown, not private parties, who have “no legal reconciliatory role to play between the Crown and the Plaintiffs.” Such conflicts would require reconciliation efforts between the Crown and the Plaintiffs, potentially involving expropriation and compensation for private landholders..."
The court clarified that “strik[ing] the pleadings that draw private parties into a constitutional claim arising between the Crown and the Aboriginal group does not mean that the Aboriginal group will be denied the possible remedy of repossessing land owned by the IDs.” It noted that “[t]he Crown holds the allodial or radical title to fee simple land,” emphasizing that while fee simple is “the bedrock of settler society,” it confers “only the beneficial interest in the land."
So even though we own our properties, almost all of it in Canada is held via fee simple (stated on your land title document), and that, per the courts and at the very end of the day, is a "beneficial interest in the land" (that can be bought, sold, hypothecated) but not an outright interest - so therefore the crown ultimately owns it, since it holds alloidial title, and can expropriate it for 'fair' compensation when warranted. Which is why the First Nations sued the crown, and not the private landholders. But if the private property holders have to give up their land, the Crown will need to compensate them or they could sue the Crown for compensation (which is likely then going to be paid by taxpayers...but it should really be paid from the King's wealth imo)
canliiconnects.org
Quite the cluster all round I would say. |
