Appellants factum - Woodward & Company

52land regularly used by the Tsilhqot’in for hunting, trapping and fishingpursuant to a “well defined network of trails and waterways” 293 that was wellestablishedat the time of European contact; 294• These lands did not include overlaps with any other First Nations; 295• There was “no evidence of adverse claimants at the time of sovereigntyassertion” in the area of proven Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal title and “Tsilhqot’inpeople were in exclusive control of that area at the time of sovereigntyassertion”; 296 and• The lands subject to proven Aboriginal title have provided “cultural securityand continuity to the Tsilhqot’in people for better than two centuries” 297 andsuch lands “ultimately defined and sustained them as a people”. 298175. On the facts found by the Trial Judge, in clear and unequivocal terms, theTsilhqot’in people established Aboriginal title to portions of their traditional lands thatprovide cultural security and continuity for the Tsilhqot’in and Xeni Gwet’in people. Asthe Trial Judge stated, if he was wrong in law on the preliminary issue, these findingsbind the Parties, in accordance with his explicit direction. 299176. The Plaintiff/Appellant respectfully submits that declarations should issue tosupport the Trial Judge’s findings of Aboriginal title with the force of law.Error #2 – Assessing Occupation in Isolation from Exclusive Control177. For the reasons set out above, the Trial Judge erred by failing to declareAboriginal title to those portions of the Claim Area where Aboriginal title was proven. In293 Trial Decision, para. 960.294 Trial Decision, para. 679.295 Trial Decision, para. 938.296 Trial Decision, para. 943 [underscore added]. See also para. 960.297 Trial Decision, para. 1376.298 Trial Decision, para. 1377.299 Trial Decision, para. 961; Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 600, [2008] B.C.J. No. 871, para. 13.