Appellants factum - Woodward & Company

58193. Moreover, the Trial Judge’s findings reinforce the exclusive physical controlexercised by the Tsilhqot’in people over the Claim Area in its entirety at sovereignty.The Trial Judge held:• “[T]he struggle, if any, between different Aboriginal groups came at themargins of their territories”; 316• “both Tsilhqot’in and non-Tsilhqot’in recognized the Claim Area as lying firmlywithin Tsilhqot’in territory” 317 and the outer boundaries of Tsilhqot’in territorywere recognized and defended; 318• The Trial Judge described numerous examples of Tsilhqot’in “conflict withother Aboriginal people in areas outside of the Claim Area”; 319• In a voluminous trial record, the Trial Judge could identify only two potentialincursions into the Claim Area by other First Nations: the first (a Homalcoraid at Potato Mountain) resulted in a forceful show of Tsilhqot’in control overthe area and pre-dated sovereignty in any event, 320 and the second (analleged temporary Homalco encampment near Tsilhqox Biny) 321 was ofdubious reliability and the Trial Judge did not determine whether it had in factoccurred or not. 322• “Aside from these two instances [concerning the Homalco], it appears thatothers respected the territorial integrity of the lands included in the ClaimArea”; and 323316 Trial Decision, para. 930.317 Trial Decision, para. 622, quoting from Exhibit 0240, Expert Report of Ken Brealey, at 20-21.318 Trial Decision, paras. 622, 930-37319 Trial Decision, para. 931.320 Trial Decision, paras. 933, 935.321 Trial Decision, para. 932, 934.322 Trial Decision, para. 934, 942.323 Trial Decision, para. 935.