Appellants factum - Woodward & Company

24part of their oral traditions, providing strength and continuity to their lives asTsilhqot’in people … 173…… [T]here are areas within Tachelach’ed where I consider the use andoccupation by Tsilhqot’in people at the time of sovereignty assertion to besufficient to warrant a finding of Aboriginal title. The evidence does not lead to afinding of sufficient use and occupation throughout Tachelach’ed. 17487. He similarly described Tsilhqot’in use and occupation of the Trapline Territory:The Western Trapline Territory overlaps with areas in Tachelach’ed. The entirearea of the Western Trapline does not qualify for a declaration of Tsilhqot’inAboriginal title. While there is no doubt that there was a Tsilhqot’in presence inthe entire area at the time of sovereignty assertion, much of the area was notoccupied to the extent required to ground a declaration of Tsilhqot'in Aboriginaltitle ... 175…I am satisfied Tsilhqot’in people were present in the Eastern Trapline Territory atthe time of first contact. The area has been used by Tsilhqot’in people since thattime for hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering of roots and berries. I am notable to find that any portion of the Eastern Trapline Territory was occupied at thetime of sovereignty assertion to the extent necessary to ground a finding ofTsilhqot’in Aboriginal title. 17688. The Trial Judge expressly declined to consider the exclusivity of Tsilhqot’in useand occupation of those parts of the Claim Area lying outside of the Proven Title Area.His exclusivity findings were directed at the lands inside and outside the Claim Areademonstrating a sufficient degree of occupation to ground Aboriginal title. 177However,as noted above, “both Tsilhqot’in and non-Tsilhqot’in recognized the Claim Area as lyingfirmly within Tsilhqot’in territory”. 178173 Trial Decision, para. 792 [underscore added].174 Trial Decision, para. 794.175 Trial Decision, para. 825 [underscore added].176 Trial Decision, para. 893 [emphasis added].177 Trial Decision, para. 928.178 Trial Decision, para. 622, quoting from Exhibit 0240, Expert Report of Ken Brealey, at 20-21.