For decades, property owners in Ontario operated under a comfortable legal assumption. They believed that once the Crown granted a deed to private land, any underlying Aboriginal title was extinguished. However, a recent Bay of Quinte Land Claims Analysis highlights how a series of landmark legal shifts in British Columbia have shattered that certainty. Rulings regarding the Cowichan Tribes and the Haida Nation suggest that Aboriginal title and private property can coexist. As these legal precedents ripple across Canada, residents in Ontario are asking if the Bay of Quinte region is next.

In British Columbia, the Cowichan Tribes claim led to a revolutionary legal acknowledgement. The courts found that land never formally surrendered via treaty remains subject to Aboriginal title even if private homes and municipal infrastructure now sit upon it. This created a “clouded title” scenario where the First Nation holds a legal interest in the land alongside the private owner. For the youthful entrepreneur who relies on land value for business loans, this is a direct threat. Uncertainty is the ultimate enemy of investment, and “clouded titles” effectively act as a regulatory tax on the next generation. The provincial government must provide absolute financial guarantees to deed holders to maintain economic stability, or risk stifling the very growth Ontario needs.

To determine the susceptibility of the Bay of Quinte, we must look at the starting line of the law. Most of British Columbia is unceded land. In contrast, the Bay of Quinte is Treaty Land governed by the Simcoe Deed of 1793. Because a treaty exists, the legal battle in Quinte is about breach of contract rather than proving title from scratch. The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) argue that the Crown illegally took or sold off portions of their treaty land without proper consent. This creates a “two-driver” system of shared jurisdiction that complicates the Canadian identity of “one law for all.” A unified regulatory environment is essential to ensure Ontario remains competitive on a global scale, yet we are drifting toward a fragmented legal landscape.

Flashpoints like the Culbertson Tract and Surrender 24 make the region a prime candidate for legal tension. The Culbertson Tract claim includes much of the Town of Deseronto. While a portion was settled in 2022 through a federal purchase, hundreds of acres remain under claim. Surrender 24 involves roughly 33,000 acres where the MBQ assert that an 1820 surrender was fraudulent. While Ontario has historically used a “Willing Buyer, Willing Seller” model, this slow-motion remedy creates an economic “limbo” that devalues property while the Crown takes years to act. It is a market-friendly theory that, in practice, leaves individual owners caught in the crossfire of 200-year-old disputes.

Advertisement

The probability of a Cowichan-style situation in the Bay of Quinte is moderate to high. While residents are unlikely to face the loss of their homes, they are highly susceptible to a future of shared jurisdiction. The legal trend in Canada is moving away from winner-take-all property rights and toward a model where Indigenous title survives the issuance of private deeds. The era of absolute fee simple certainty is likely over. The region is entering a period of “reconciliation property rights” where the Simcoe Deed and private property deeds will have to learn to live side by side.

Is your backyard truly yours if the title is “clouded” by a 200-year-old contract dispute? How can the next generation of Canadian homeowners find security in an era of “shared jurisdiction”?

Join us on X and Facebook to share your thoughts.

Advertisement

It is November 2025 and the economic anxiety in Ottawa is palpable as all eyes turn to Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court has just heard oral arguments in the historic case that will determine if President Trump’s “emergency” universal tariffs are actually legal. We are living in a strange timeline where Canada’s economic fate rests not in the hands of our own tenacious negotiators but on the nuanced interpretation of a 1977 American statute by nine foreign judges.

In a timely discussion featured on The Hub podcast this week UBC constitutional law expert Geoffrey Sigalet broke down this high-stakes gamble. The core of the issue is President Trump’s aggressive use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). He has used this act to impose sweeping tariffs by claiming that chronic trade imbalances and border security issues like the fentanyl crisis constitute a national emergency.

Challengers in the U.S. argue that their Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power over tariffs and trade. They claim the President cannot simply seize that power by declaring an emergency under a law that does not even use the word “tariff” in its text.

Reports from the courtroom today suggest the conservative-majority court is skeptical of Trump’s broad interpretation of his powers. This is the rich irony of our current situation. Canada might be saved by the very conservative legal movement that Trump helped build because legal conservatives often hate executive overreach more than they love partisan policy wins.

Advertisement

If the Court sides with the President it cements a new reality where crippling American protectionism can be deployed on a whim. If they side with the challengers it could mean a massive and immediate rollback of these damaging duties.

While we wait for a ruling we have to ask ourselves some hard questions about how we got here.

Why is our national economic strategy so fragile that it can be derailed by one man’s creative interpretation of a forty-year-old emergency law? And why are we reduced to cheering from the sidelines for American judges to do the heavy lifting our own diplomats could not manage?

Join us on X and Facebook to share your thoughts.

Advertisement

SOURCES

• The Hub (Podcast): ‘Bet against the president winning’: Could an American Supreme Court ruling save Canadian trade? featuring Geoffrey Sigalet.
  • https://thehub.ca/podcast/audio/bet-against-the-president-winning-could-an-american-supreme-court-ruling-save-canadian-trade/
• The Guardian (Live News Blog): Trump news at a glance: supreme court examines president’s global tariffs.
  • https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/05/trump-administration-news-updates-today
• CBS News (Article): Supreme Court justices seem skeptical of Trump’s sweeping tariffs.
  • https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-trump-tariffs-arguments/
• Chatham House (Analysis): Trump’s tariffs face Supreme Court challenge that could have significant consequences for presidential power.
  • https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/11/trumps-tariffs-face-supreme-court-challenge-could-have-significant-consequences

In Alberta, an altercation on a golf course this summer led to a former NHL player getting a beer named after him.

Nick Tarnasky, a former professional fighter and enforcer for teams like the Tampa Bay Lightning and Florida Panthers, found his on-ice skills useful on the links.

The incident occurred at the Alberta Springs Golf Resort in Red Deer. The issue was slow play. A video went viral showing Tarnasky arguing with another golfer, Trevor Ogilvie. The video shows Ogilvie charging at Tarnasky, who then throws him into a water hazard. Ogilvie gets out and re-engages, receiving a couple of swift punches for his trouble.

The video quickly gained online attention. Calgary’s Common Crown Brewing Co. created a limited-edition brew called “The Tarnasky,” a “smooth-hitting IPA,” which sold out almost immediately.

Advertisement

Ogilvie later posted an apology video on Facebook, admitting he “played 36 holes of golf, drank way too much, and my mouth ran faster than my brain.” The RCMP were called, but no charges were laid.

Join us here on X or here on Facebook to comment on this article.