Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan
Jul 2, 2026 · 21 min · 5 segments
A court ruling can change more than a headline, it can change how safe you feel about the basics: owning property and trusting the people who handle your money. We walk through a remarkable British…
Michael MulliganGuest
Adam StirlingHost
And speaking of reconciliation and how it is treated by the law, what are we seeing in the couch and tribes matter?
I must say this is just a fascinating, of course, not of course, but almost never-ending piece of litigation.
And the most recent part of this case was an application brought by one of the landowners over in Richmond whose private ownership of land could be impacted by the trial judge's decision in that case.
And the particular application that was just decided was an application by the landowner to reopen the litigation to permit them to make submissions and participate in it.
When the litigation was getting rolling and at that point there was an application brought by the province and others to give notice to private property owners of the litigation so they could decide whether they wish to apply to participate in it.
And back in 2017, the Cowichan Tribe's position for the judge hearing that application amounted to saying that this litigation, that litigation, the particular litigation wouldn't affect fee simple ownership.
On the basis of representations including that one, the judge hearing the application for notice to private property owners declined to order that notice be provided to them.
And I think in fairness, the position taken by Cowichan tribes was a very nuanced one.
And in the course of the main part of the litigation, if I can call it that, a trial which went on for some 513 days, The position taken, according to the judge by Cowichan Tribes, was that they weren't seeking to take fee-simple private property land in that litigation.
However, and it's very important, however, because the term in that litigation does a lot of heavy lifting.
Because the plaintiffs, couch and tribe indicated that it would be for another day to interpret the decision about how Aboriginal title could affect private property owners.
And then the decision came in the main part of the case, and the judge found that the Aboriginal title could affect fee-simple ownership and sort of musing about whether fee-simple ownership could survive at all.
Then there were comments made in the media by Council for Couch and Tribes suggesting that the decision might mean that Cowichan tribes might need to consent to any sale of property in that area.
It's true that you can imagine what impact that would have on whether you, in fact, own the property or what it's worth.
Could you get a mortgage for it? And that rationale, of course, could affect not just property in Richmond, but potentially property all over the province.
The private property owner brought in that one of the private property owners then brought this application to reopen the proceedings so that they could participate in it, saying, holy smokes, this might undermine what we in fact own here.
And the judge has effectively denied the application by the private property owner to reopen the litigation with a variety of, and I should say, interestingly, none of the other parties involved objected to it.
Provincial government, federal government, Richmond, all the other parties that were part of it.
And speaking of reconciliation and how it is treated by the law, what are we seeing in the couch and tribes matter?
I must say this is just a fascinating, of course, not of course, but almost never-ending piece of litigation.
And the most recent part of this case was an application brought by one of the landowners over in Richmond whose private ownership of land could be impacted by the trial judge's decision in that case.
And the particular application that was just decided was an application by the landowner to reopen the litigation to permit them to make submissions and participate in it.
When the litigation was getting rolling and at that point there was an application brought by the province and others to give notice to private property owners of the litigation so they could decide whether they wish to apply to participate in it.
And back in 2017, the Cowichan Tribe's position for the judge hearing that application amounted to saying that this litigation, that litigation, the particular litigation wouldn't affect fee simple ownership.
On the basis of representations including that one, the judge hearing the application for notice to private property owners declined to order that notice be provided to them.
And I think in fairness, the position taken by Cowichan tribes was a very nuanced one.
And in the course of the main part of the litigation, if I can call it that, a trial which went on for some 513 days, The position taken, according to the judge by Cowichan Tribes, was that they weren't seeking to take fee-simple private property land in that litigation.
However, and it's very important, however, because the term in that litigation does a lot of heavy lifting.
Because the plaintiffs, couch and tribe indicated that it would be for another day to interpret the decision about how Aboriginal title could affect private property owners.
And then the decision came in the main part of the case, and the judge found that the Aboriginal title could affect fee-simple ownership and sort of musing about whether fee-simple ownership could survive at all.
Then there were comments made in the media by Council for Couch and Tribes suggesting that the decision might mean that Cowichan tribes might need to consent to any sale of property in that area.
It's true that you can imagine what impact that would have on whether you, in fact, own the property or what it's worth.
Could you get a mortgage for it? And that rationale, of course, could affect not just property in Richmond, but potentially property all over the province.
The private property owner brought in that one of the private property owners then brought this application to reopen the proceedings so that they could participate in it, saying, holy smokes, this might undermine what we in fact own here.
And the judge has effectively denied the application by the private property owner to reopen the litigation with a variety of, and I should say, interestingly, none of the other parties involved objected to it.
Provincial government, federal government, Richmond, all the other parties that were part of it.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.