By enforcing Indigenous land claims and EDI mandates, UBC risks violating its legal obligations under the University Act
Four University of British Columbia professors and a recent PhD graduate have filed a lawsuit against the university, alleging that its Indigenous-focused land acknowledgments and equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) hiring requirements violate the institution’s legal obligation to remain “non-sectarian and non-political,” as mandated by section 66 of the University Act.
Land acknowledgments, now common at universities and public events across Canada, are formal statements recognizing that an institution or gathering is taking place on territory once traditionally used or claimed by Indigenous peoples. They are often framed as affirmations of Indigenous rights and historical grievances.
The lawsuit, filed April 7 in B.C. Supreme Court, seeks an order forcing UBC to remove all references to its campuses being located on “unceded” land and to end the use of EDI statements favouring Indigenous applicants as a condition for faculty hiring.
At the heart of the petition is the claim that UBC’s land acknowledgments imply that “Canada” is not a lawful or legitimate country but instead occupies “stolen land.” The lawsuit specifically names the Musqueam and Okanagan peoples, on whose pre-contact territories the Vancouver and Okanagan campuses operate. It argues that UBC’s declarations leave no room for staff or students to disagree, calling them “authoritatively and prescriptively political” acts that violate the university’s legal neutrality.
The University Act, which governs British Columbia’s public universities, requires these institutions to maintain a non-partisan, non-religious stance in their official activities and policies.
For example, the Okanagan campus acknowledgment states: “I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the Syilx (Okanagan) peoples.”
The plaintiffs argue that by forcing students, staff, and faculty to accept such political positions, UBC is breaching its statutory duty to remain non-partisan and punish those who refuse to comply.
Predictably, Indigenous leaders have denounced the lawsuit. The Okanagan Nation Alliance and Westbank First Nation called it “a denial of Indigenous rights and a thinly veiled attempt to erase Indigenous presence.” The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs also condemned the challenge, accusing the plaintiffs of mischaracterizing Indigenous rights and urging UBC to defend itself.
Scott Franks, an assistant professor at UBC’s Allard School of Law who claims expertise in Aboriginal law, sided strongly with Indigenous critics. In an April 16 Globe and Mail editorial, Franks argued that “land acknowledgments aren’t political,” but rather “uphold the rule of law in Canada” because they recognize the constitutional affirmation of Indigenous rights. According to Franks: “The main campus of the University of British Columbia is located on Musqueam territory, which the Musqueam have never surrendered nor ceded to the Crown. As a legal fact, this means that the land is unceded and that the Musqueam Nation retains title to those lands.”
However, while land acknowledgments carry political and symbolic significance, establishing actual Aboriginal title under Canadian law involves a much stricter set of legal tests.
It is true that “ceded” typically means land was surrendered through a treaty. It is also not inaccurate to describe many areas of British Columbia as “unceded,” given that few treaties were signed. But saying land is “unceded” does not automatically mean it is subject to recognized Aboriginal title. In Canadian law, Aboriginal title must be proven through evidence of exclusive occupation at the time of Crown sovereignty—in British Columbia’s case, 1846, when Britain and the United States agreed on the Oregon Boundary Treaty. So far, Indigenous plaintiffs have failed to establish Aboriginal title over about 90 per cent of the land they have claimed.
Franks’ framing misleadingly implies that the Crown lacks legitimate ownership of large parts of British Columbia. In fact, Canadian courts have consistently affirmed that Crown title exists, though in some cases it may carry an underlying burden of Aboriginal title, but only where Indigenous claimants meet strict legal tests.
Furthermore, Aboriginal title can be legally extinguished if the Crown meets a high legal threshold: demonstrating pressing and substantial public purposes, fulfilling its duty to consult and accommodate, and continuing to act honourably toward Indigenous peoples.
Had the petitioners pressed even further, they could have strengthened their case by challenging the historical and prehistorical assumptions embedded in UBC’s land acknowledgments. The claim that UBC sites are on the “traditional, ancestral, and unceded” territory of the Syilx people implies uninterrupted, exclusive occupation over thousands of years—an assertion that has not been proven for any Indigenous group anywhere in Canada. Archaeological evidence overwhelmingly shows that for at least 14,000 years, semi-nomadic Indigenous groups moved, hunted and fished widely across overlapping territories.
As of this writing, UBC has not filed a response to the lawsuit, offering only a brief media statement saying it is aware of the petition and will review it. Whether the university can defend the legality of its increasingly political institutional practices remains to be seen.
Hymie Rubenstein, editor of REAL Indigenous Report, is a retired professor of anthropology at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
