The Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear an appeal from the Wolastoqey First Nations concerning the validity of Aboriginal title over privately held industrial lands in New Brunswick.

加拿大最高法院已拒絕受理 Wolastoqey 原住民族針對新不倫瑞克省私有工業土地原住民權屬有效性的上訴。

The judicial refusal maintains the status quo of a New Brunswick Court of Appeal ruling, which posited that a declaration of Aboriginal title over private property would fundamentally undermine the reconciliation process between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Justice Ernest Drapeau articulated that granting exclusive possession of such lands would be incompatible with the interests of non-Aboriginal citizens, citing the 2014 Tŝilhqot’in decision as a precedent for balancing competing interests.

司法上的拒絕維持了新不倫瑞克省上訴法院的裁決現況，該裁決認為，宣告私有財產擁有原住民權屬將從根本上削弱原住民與非原住民加拿大人之間的和解進程。Ernest Drapeau 法官闡明，賦予此類土地的專屬佔有權將與非原住民公民的利益不相容，並引用 2014 年 Tŝilhqot’in 裁決作為平衡競爭利益的先例。

This procedural outcome creates a significant legal divergence from the current state of affairs in British Columbia. In that jurisdiction, the B.C. Supreme Court previously determined that Aboriginal title and fee simple ownership could co-exist, specifically regarding 3.25 square kilometres of land in Richmond held by the Cowichan (Quw'utsun) Nation. Consequently, the B.C. government was directed to negotiate a reconciliation of these overlapping interests.

這一程序結果造成了與卑詩省目前狀況顯著的法律分歧。在該司法管轄區，卑詩省最高法院先前認定原住民權屬與完全所有權（fee simple ownership）可以共存，特別是針對 Cowichan (Quw''utsun) 民族在列治文持有的 3.25 平方公里土地。因此，卑詩省政府被指示就這些重疊的利益協商和解。

Stakeholder positioning reveals a strategic alignment between the B.C. Attorney General, the federal government, and the City of Richmond, all of whom are pursuing appeals of the Cowichan decision. These entities contend that the New Brunswick ruling provides a persuasive legal framework for the protection of private property rights. Conversely, legal representatives for the Cowichan Nation viewed the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Wolastoqey case as advantageous, arguing that a question of such national magnitude should be adjudicated based on a full factual record established at trial rather than through a pretrial procedural hearing.

利益相關者的定位顯示，卑詩省總檢察長、聯邦政府與列治文市之間存在策略性的一致，三方均在對 Cowichan 裁決提出上訴。這些實體主張，新不倫瑞克省的裁決為保護私有財產權提供了一個具說服力的法律框架。相反，Cowichan 民族的法律代表將最高法院拒絕受理 Wolastoqey 案視為有利之舉，認為如此具有國家重要性的問題應基於審判時建立的完整事實記錄進行裁決，而非透過審前程序聆訊。

The Supreme Court's decision leaves the legal question of Aboriginal title over private lands unresolved, while providing a procedural basis for the ongoing appeals in the Cowichan case.

最高法院的決定使得私有土地原住民權屬的法律問題懸而未決，但為 Cowichan 案目前進行中的上訴提供了程序上的依據。