As previously discussed in our article of May 6, 2026,  two major court decisions (J.D. Irving, Limited et al. v. Wolastoqey Nation from New Brunswick and Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General) from BC) have recently reshaped the legal landscape around Aboriginal title and private land ownership in Canada, raising fundamental questions for governments, developers, and property owners.

‍

Two courts - two different answers, and the Supreme Court of Canada isn’t stepping in just yet. In May 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the Wolastoqey Nation’s appeal of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal’s decision which held that Aboriginal title and fee simple ownership cannot exist, and that instead, courts may recognize a “finding” of Aboriginal title over private lands to support claims for compensation against the Crown. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision leaves New Brunswick law clear: Aboriginal title cannot be declared over privately held lands - only compensation from the Crown is available. Meanwhile, the BC Supreme Court’s decision in Cowichan Tribes went the other way, declaring Aboriginal title over land that included private parcels.

‍

The Supreme Court of Canada’s refusal to weigh in on the New Brunswick case doesn't signal agreement or disagreement with either ruling, it simply means the Court wasn't ready to decide this issue without a full trial record. That Canada-wide resolution will likely have to wait until the Cowichan Tribes case works its way through the BC Court of Appeal and eventually reaches the Supreme Court of Canada, a process expected to take several years.

‍

In the meantime, Aboriginal title litigation continues. The BC Court of Appeal recently expanded a title declaration in Nuchatlaht v. British Columbia, covering over 200 km² of Nootka Island, though notably, no private lands were involved.

‍

The bottom line: the law remains unsettled and different across provinces. Real estate investors, developers, and lenders should continue to monitor these developments closely.

‍

On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada created the tort of intimate partner violence as a distinct legal basis for survivors to seek financial compensation separate from family law entitlements and other torts like sexual assault and battery.

‍

This landmark decision in the case of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia establishes a new legal pathway for individuals to sue for patterns of coercive and long-term abuse that existing civil claims, like assault or battery, may fail to adequately address.

‍

To succeed in a claim under this new tort, a plaintiff must typically demonstrate a pattern of behavior within an intimate partnership and prove three elements:

1. The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath;
2. The defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct; and
3. That the conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control.

‍

At paragraph 5, the Court held “…Harm flows from proof of the intentional wrong because coercive control directly interfered with the plaintiff’s legal interests in dignity, autonomy, and equality within an intimate partnership. The extent of that harm may warrant greater or lesser quantum of damages, depending on the circumstances”.

‍

This decision has broader implications for survivors of sexual abuse generally. Historically, most civil sexual abuse claims pleaded the torts sexual assault and battery. In summary, these claims require a plaintiff to prove either non-consensual physical contact of a sexual nature or intentional creation of fear or apprehension of imminent sexual contact. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove consent, either express or implied.

‍

Survivors and trauma-informed practitioners know that abuse is often larger than a single incident. Grooming, coercion, manipulation, dependency, threats and psychological domination can also shape a survivor’s ability to consent, resist, report, or leave. Those harms are real, often deeply relational and ongoing and are not necessarily captured in the analysis of the torts of sexual assault and battery.

‍

By recognizing patterns of coercive and degrading conduct as actionable in their own right, the SCC has signaled a growing understanding that sexual abuse cannot always be reduced to discrete events viewed in isolation.

‍

This decision creates a distinct civil pathway for survivors to seek compensation for harms that have too often been minimized or misunderstood.

‍

The history of the decision is important, because the initial claim was advanced as a tort of family violence, a much broader tort.

‍

The trial decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice initially created this broader tort of family violence.

‍

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision, suggesting existing torts like assault and battery were sufficient to address the matter.

‍

The SCC reversed the ONCA decision, but narrowed the scope of the tort to intimate partner violence. The SCC pointed out the unique nature of romantic relationships and the vulnerability and harm that can flow from them. The Court also found the tort of family violence to be too broad.

‍

The applicable limitation period has not yet been determined and may be addressed in future either by the courts and/or through legislative reform.

‍

If you are a survivor of intimate partner violence, you have options. Taking the first step to come forward can be difficult, but our trauma-informed legal team is here to discuss your options and support you without judgment when you are ready.

Joint ventures can be an effective way for investors and developers to share risk and capital on real estate projects, but financing arrangements must be carefully structured from the outset.

‍

Here are 4 key financing issues to consider in any joint venture:

• Guarantees and Liability: Lenders often require personal or corporate guarantees and joint and several liability, meaning they can go after any one of the joint venturers for the entire debt, making it important for each party to a joint venture to understand its exposure before financing is secured.
• Financing Shortfalls: The joint venture agreement should clearly address how cost overruns, repayment deficiencies, or sale shortfalls will be allocated between each party to the joint venture.
• Separate Mortgages: Some joint venture agreements will allow each joint venturer to separately mortgage its interest in the property, regardless of what the other joint venturers do. If one partner can mortgage its interest independently, the joint venture agreement should limit the principal amount and interest that can be charged, require lender compliance with the joint venture agreement, and protect the non-mortgaging partner in the event of default or enforcement by the lender.
• Funding Discrepancies: Where partners contribute capital at different times or in different amounts, staged funding obligations and clear dispute resolution provisions will help avoid conflict.

‍

Two major court decisions have recently reshaped the legal landscape around Aboriginal title and private land ownership in Canada, raising fundamental questions for governments, developers, and property owners.

‍

Aboriginal rights and title, protected under Canada’s Constitution, were never fully defined, leaving courts to determine their scope over time. Historically, Aboriginal title claims focused on government-owned Crown land, but recent cases have expanded the discussion to privately-owned property.

‍

In Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), the British Columbia Supreme Court made history by recognizing Aboriginal title over property that was owned by private landowners. The Court found that Aboriginal title and private ownership can coexist, and that Crown grants of land do not necessarily extinguish underlying Indigenous rights. While private landowners were not directly impacted in this case, the decision raises the possibility that fee simple interests could be challenged in future proceedings. The Court encouraged negotiated solutions between the Province and Indigenous groups to reconcile overlapping interests.

‍

However, in J.D. Irving, Limited v. Wolastoqey Nation, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected this approach, holding that Aboriginal title and fee simple ownership cannot coexist. Instead, courts may recognize a “finding” of Aboriginal title over private lands to support claims for compensation against the Crown, but not to disturb private ownership.

‍

These conflicting rulings create significant uncertainty nationwide, particularly as both cases move through the appeals process and will likely be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. For now, most real estate transactions remain unaffected, but enhanced due diligence is increasingly important when buying or refinancing your property, especially for properties within or near asserted Indigenous territories or where developments may impact Aboriginal rights.

‍

Everyone has the right to feel safe at work. In BC that right is enshrined in law, meaning employers have a legal duty to provide a workplace free from harassment and bullying.

‍

Despite the law and employers’ best efforts, workplace harassment and bullying can still arise and can include:

• Verbal abuse or intimidation;
• Discriminatory comments;
• Persistent unwanted behavior;
• Psychological harassment; and
• Unwanted sexual advances or touching.

‍

WorkSafeBC policies and the BC and Canadian Human Rights Codes offer protections for workers. For example, under WorkSafeBC policies, employers must have procedures in place to address complaints and investigate concerns. Failing to do so can expose the employer to legal risk.

‍

If you are experiencing harassment or bullying, consider the following steps:

1. Report the issue internally (only if you believe it is safe to do so);
2. Keep detailed records, including dates, witnesses and copies of communications; and
3. Seek legal advice about your options which may include, but are not limited to the following:

• Summary legal advice;
• Support in communicating about the matter with your employer;
• Engaging in workplace dispute resolution processes;
• Request for a workplace investigation;
• Filing a complaint with WorkSafeBC;
• Filing a lawsuit for wrongful or constructive dismissal; and
• Making a complaint to the BC or Canadian Human Rights Tribunals.

‍

You do not have to tolerate a toxic work environment. Connecting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and take steps to protect your wellbeing and career.

‍

If you are experiencing workplace harassment or bullying, contact KSW to help you move forward with clarity and support.

‍

Losing your job can be overwhelming, especially if it catches you by surprise. Though minimum termination requirements are set by the BC Employment Standards Act, employees are often entitled to more under the common law, collective agreements or other legislation.

‍

One of the most common issues that arises termination is whether the employee was provided adequate notice or pay in lieu of notice. If inadequate notice or pay in lieu of notice is provided, it may be considered wrongful dismissal. In determining what period or notice or pay in lieu of notice is appropriate, a court will consider factors like your age, position, length of service and ability to find similar work.

‍

When an employee is dismissed, an employer will typically offer a severance package and ask them to sign documents. Many employees mistakenly believe the must accept the package and sign paperwork—that is not the case! You are not obligated to do so and have the option to consult with and have the package reviewed by a lawyer. Understanding your rights can bring peace of mind and may make a significant financial difference.

‍

If you have been dismissed, it is important to take these three simple steps:

1. Avoid signing anything right away
2. .Request any details in writing; and
3. Get legal advice before responding or accepting an offer.

‍

If you have missed any of these steps, it may not be too late. Sometimes it only takes a short conversation with a lawyer to clarify whether the offer you received is fair.

‍

If you have been terminated, contact KSW Lawyers. We can help you move forward with clarity and support.  

‍

British Columbia’s Pay Transparency Act (S.B.C. 2023, c. 17) (the “Act”) aims to reduce workplace barriers and promote pay equity. A key requirement is the preparation and public release of annual pay transparency reports by certain employers.

‍

The Act defines reporting employers in two ways: certain public-sector organizations were automatically included when the legislation came into force, while private-sector employers are phased in based on workforce size. The threshold has dropped significantly—from 1,000+ employees in 2024, to 300+ in 2025, and now to 50+ employees in 2026. This expansion means many more BC employers must now comply.

‍

Reports must be published annually by November 1 and made publicly accessible (typically via a company website). The report generally must disclose gender-based pay differences, including comparisons of mean and median hourly pay, overtime, and bonus compensation across gender categories. The Pay Transparency Regulation, BC Reg 225/2023 includes a detailed overview of everything to be included in the report and the calculation guidance, and the province offers a reporting tool to assist employers through their Business BCeID accounts.

‍

While there are no direct financial penalties for non-compliance, the government may publicly identify employers who fail to report.

‍

If your organization may be affected, now is the time to prepare. Contact Jaime Sarophim at KSW Lawyers for guidance on compliance and reporting obligations.

Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate acts is less than it otherwise would be.

‍

A taxpayer’s characterization of the source of income is one of the ways in which a taxpayer may order his affairs.  However, it should first be noted that not all monies taken in by a taxpayer in a year are considered income, or therefore subject to taxation.

‍

To be considered income (from a source), the amount should be able to be linked with one or more of the following characteristics:

• recurrence on a periodic basis;
• involving organized effort, activity, or pursuit on the part of the taxpayer;
• giving rise to an enforceable claim to the payment by the taxpayer;
• payment was sought after and/or reasonably expected by the taxpayer;
• the payer is a customary source of income for the taxpayer;
• involving a marketplace exchange; or
• the pursuit of profit.

‍

Once the amounts taken in by the taxpayer have been affirmatively characterized as income from a source, depending on the characterization of the source from which the amounts flowed, the income may lead to the availability of different deductions, remittance time requirements, and possibly even different taxation rates.

‍

Broadly speaking, sources of income can be characterized in two ways: either as being from office or employment, or as being from business or property. The first step requires knowing whether the relationship between the taxpayer and the source is one of a contract of service, which creates an employer-employee relationship, and results in the source of the income being characterized as derived from office or employment, or whether the relationship is one of a contract for services, which creates the relationship of a principal and agent, and results in the source of income being characterized as derived from business or property.

‍

While both characterizations ultimately result in the income being taxable, the characterization, and the corresponding deductions available, may result in different taxpayers reporting different values of their income from a source for the year, even though the gross amounts taken in may have started off as being the same to each of them.

‍

This article provides an introductory overview of what a “marriage-like relationship” is and how it is relevant in family law matters.

‍

The terms marriage-like relationship is often referred to as a “common-law relationship.” It generally describes a relationship in which two people live together in a committed, marriage-like partnership without being legally married.

‍

Under British Columbia’s Family Law Act, unmarried partners may be considered “spouses” if they have lived together in a marriage-like relationship for a continuous period of at least two years. Once this requirement is met, those individuals are entitled to the same rights and obligations as married spouses with respect to property division.

‍

Importantly, if the parties have a child together, the two-year cohabitation requirement does not apply to child and spousal support.

‍

Determining whether a relationship qualifies as “marriage-like” can be complex and depends on various factors, including but not limited to the nature of the parties’ living arrangements, financial interdependence, how the parties present their relationship in public, how the parties view their own relationship subjectively, how others view their relationship objectively, and the overall level of commitment in the relationship. Courts will assess the relationship as a whole, rather than relying on any single factor.

‍

If you are unsure whether your relationship may be considered “marriage-like,” or if you have been living with a partner close to or beyond the two-year mark, it is advisable to seek legal advice. Our Family Law Department would be pleased to arrange a consultation to discuss your specific circumstances and help you determine the appropriate steps to protect your interests.

‍