AME calls on BC Premier to appeal court decision on Indigenous rights in mineral claims staking

[Ben Graham]

The Association for Mineral Exploration (AME) on Friday called on British Columbia Premier David Eby to appeal the Gitxaala Nation v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2023 BCSC 1680 decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.  

On Dec. 5^th the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) determined in a new ruling that the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) incorporates the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and creates legally enforceable obligations. 

The BCCA case was a partial appeal by the Gitxaala and Ehattesaht First Nations, following the 2023 BCSC decision that ruled the province’s automatic online mineral claim system breached its constitutional duty to consult, but had limited interpretation of DRIPA.  

The case began when Gitxaala Nation filed a legal challenge in 2021 in Supreme Court seeking to overturn the province’s granting of multiple mineral claims from 2018 to 2020 on Banks Island, in their territory. The issue centered around whether the Mineral Tenure Act is consistent with UNDRIP. 

AME’s position  

The AME is also calling on government to recall the legislature to bring forward substantive amendments to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and section 8.1 of the Interpretation Act.  

The approach, AME said, that the Court of Appeal has taken in the Gitxaala case has cast confusion on business and reconciliation in the province, and maintains the decision must be appealed and the two laws substantially changed.  

“Government must be crystal clear about their focus on amending both DRIPA and the Interpretation Act. These changes cannot just be window dressing. They must be substantial, otherwise we are headed to a place where DRIPA and the government’s reconciliation goals are unworkable,” AME CEO Todd Stone said in a news release.  

The AME also said that while the Dec. 5^th case decided that the previous mineral tenure regime did not consult First Nations prior to awarding mineral tenure, it does not invalidate the Mineral Tenure Act.  

The decision, the Association said, did not consider as relevant the MCCF that was implemented on March 25, 2025, in response to the BCSC’s decision that the Mineral Tenure Act is constitutionally valid but that the province must amend the process under the Mineral Tenure Act.  

“The implications and related public reaction to the B.C. Court of Appeal decision demonstrates that the public interest is not met by having these issues dealt with by the courts, and that a path forward should be found by government, industry and Indigenous Nations working towards reconciliation together,” AME said.  

“It is in the public interest that legislation is in place to guide our province’s future. DRIPA and the Interpretation Act (s. 8.1) require significant amendments to address the issues brought forward by the case and the public. If these changes are not substantive the problem will only get worse as courts are left to interpret UNDRIP as ‘a complex, multi-faceted international instrument’ and decide what laws must be changed and how.”  

In its press release, AME stipulated a deadline of Feb. 16, 2026 for the appeal.