Another decade-old Indigenous land title case is causing alarm over its potential implications for private property rights in B.C.
Filed in 2015, the same year as the landmark Cowichan Tribes legal challenge, this lawsuit was brought by the Secwepemc Nation to stop the Ajax gold and copper mine project near Kamloops.
Despite the province denying the project its environmental assessment certificate in 2017, the case has stayed active, with regular, ongoing filings by both parties. And the title claims involve large swathes of land beyond the mine site, so it remains relevant.
The lawsuit is in the case planning stages, and a trial date has not been set.
Essentially, the Secwepemc Nation makes claims in the suit that construction of the Ajax mine would destroy culturally significant sites, backing this argument up by asserting Aboriginal title over an area covering 1.25 million hectares of land, including the entire City of Kamloops.
This lawsuit received little attention until a novel finding in the Cowichan case ordered the reconciliation of Aboriginal title on private land, making people wonder if the same thing could happen with the Secwepemc’s claims. That case is now headed to the B.C. Court of Appeals. It could eventually wind up in the Supreme Court of Canada, which means years may pass before a final, precedent-setting ruling is made.
In the Ajax case, the Secwepemc sued mine owner KGHM and the Province of B.C. because of the possibility that several lakes with cultural value would be destroyed. The First Nation argued that this infringed upon Aboriginal rights and title.
To ensure all avenues were covered — common legal procedure — the Secwepemc’s lawyers argued for title rights to both the mine site and to the much larger area, allowing that the court could grant the broader title rights, or strictly recognize title over just the mine area.
Chief Ron Ignace, former head of the Skeetchestn Indian Band, now Canada’s Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, is one of the two chiefs named in the suit.
Reached for comment by phone, Ignace said he actually thought the case was no longer active. He hadn’t even heard anything about it in five or six years.
But he was able to shed some light on the intentions behind its filing.
When it was first brought, he said, the lawsuit was “just about the mine.” The goal was “to preserve a very sacred heritage site.”
Ignace also said kicking people out of their homes is not the goal of these types of legal challenges.
“At worst, what we would make them do is pay us their taxes, and they can carry on their business as usual,” he said.
The other chief named in the suit is Rosanne Casimir of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc.
Casimir confirmed the case is still active, but would not comment further due to the ongoing legal proceedings.
Black Press Media reached out to KGHM, but did not receive a response.
Mine application denied due to impact on cultural sites
The Secwepemc legal filing describes many of the impacts of the proposed mine, particularly on Jacko and Goose lakes, places which figure prominently in local Indigenous oral history.
The lawsuit argues construction of the mine would result in the partial draining, alteration or removal of several of these lakes, as well as the destruction of forests and other natural habitats.
In 2017, the Environmental Assessment Office decided these and other concerns about local impacts were valid, denying the certificate on the basis that there “would be significant adverse effects to Indigenous heritage and to the current use of land and resources for traditional purposes.”
But this failed to resolve all of the claims made in the lawsuit. The case continued, and the notice of civil claim was updated as recently as March 10, 2025.
As this lawsuit winds through the court process, the province is advancing similar arguments as it did in the Cowichan Tribes suit — that the granting of fee simple title overrules Aboriginal title.
These arguments are generally consistent in both cases, and predate the NDP taking power in 2017 from the B.C. Liberals.
Attorney General Niki Sharma says the province’s position must take into account previous Supreme Court of Canada precedent. Basically, the courts have rejected the argument that Aboriginal title can be completely removed or “extinguished,” so the province must take a different approach.
“What we constructed our arguments based on was about protecting private property rights through our arguments of suspension and displacement — that once you have a fee simple title, it is protected,” Sharma said in the legislature on Oct. 29.
The Ministry of Attorney General declined to provide further details on its legal strategy, other than to say the province’s response is consistent in litigation and negotiation that private property rights must be upheld while reconciliation advances.
MLA wants more transparency
Independent MLA Elenore Sturko brought the Ajax lawsuit to light in a Nov. 5 social media post, saying the province needs to do more to alert the public to cases that could have wide-ranging implications for property rights.
She called for transparency from government officials to combat uncertainty and misinformation, and to help the public understand how lawsuits and court decisions impact the government’s negotiations with First Nations on title rights.
“They definitely need to do a better job of keeping the public informed about what they’re doing, what’s happening, where there are claims and what the possible impact on British Columbians these types of claims can have,” Sturko said in a phone call the day after she highlighted the case.
The Ministry of Attorney General would not or could not provide Black Press Media a list of current active Indigenous title rights cases, citing the broad range of litigation the B.C. government could be involved in at any given time.
“In general, the province always strives to resolve land claims through negotiation — where we can protect property rights directly — rather than risk considerable uncertainty through court decisions,” the ministry said.