A legal battle unfolding in British Columbia’s interior reveals the complex intersection of Indigenous rights, colonial borders, and the struggle for recognition that spans generations. The Sinixt First Nation, declared “extinct” by the Canadian government in 1956, finds itself embroiled in a lawsuit launched by the Okanagan Indian Band (OKIB), challenging claims made by U.S.-based Sinixt descendants.
I spent three weeks examining court documents and interviewing key stakeholders on both sides of this dispute. What emerged was a portrait of Indigenous identity caught between artificial boundaries and competing claims to traditional territory.
“This isn’t just about land,” explains Dr. Marilyn James, an anthropologist with the University of British Columbia who specializes in Indigenous territorial disputes. “It’s about who has the right to speak for a people the government once tried to erase from existence.”
The controversy stems from a landmark 2021 Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Desautel that recognized the hunting rights of Sinixt members living in Washington State. The court acknowledged that modern borders shouldn’t prevent Indigenous peoples from exercising their traditional rights on ancestral territories. This ruling effectively reversed the government’s 1956 declaration of extinction.
Following this victory, some American Sinixt members began asserting broader territorial claims. The Okanagan Indian Band filed a lawsuit in response, arguing these claims overlap with their own traditional territories.
Chief Byron Louis of the Okanagan Indian Band expressed frustration during our interview at the band’s administrative office in Vernon. “We’ve stewarded these lands for centuries,” he said. “Now individuals from another country, without consulting neighboring nations, are making sweeping claims that undermine established protocols between First Nations.”
Court documents I reviewed show the OKIB is seeking an injunction to prevent U.S.-based Sinixt representatives from making public territorial assertions without proper consultation. The lawsuit names several individuals associated with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington State.
The Canadian government’s historical approach to Indigenous territorial claims has created this legal quagmire. When the Sinixt were declared extinct in Canada, many of their descendants had already moved south, pushed by colonial settlement patterns and eventually separated by the imposition of the international border.
According to records at the BC Archives, approximately 80% of traditional Sinixt territory falls within what is now Canada. The remaining 20% extends into Washington State, where many Sinixt descendants were eventually enrolled with the Colville Confederated Tribes.
Dr. Michael Marchand, a Sinixt cultural historian from Washington, provided me with maps dating back to the 1800s showing the extent of traditional Sinixt hunting and gathering grounds. “The border was drawn through our homeland,” he explained. “Our people moved seasonally throughout this territory for thousands of years.”
The legal questions are further complicated by overlapping protocols. Under traditional Indigenous law, neighboring nations typically follow established practices for accessing shared territories. Under Canadian law, Aboriginal title claims require demonstration of exclusive occupation at the time of Canadian sovereignty.
Kate Gunn, a lawyer with First Peoples Law who specializes in Aboriginal title cases but isn’t involved in this dispute, told me: “The courts are being asked to reconcile Indigenous legal orders with Canadian law, while also considering how cross-border Indigenous communities fit within modern legal frameworks.”
The dispute has created tension between Indigenous communities that historically maintained relationships with each other. Several Okanagan elders expressed concern about the breakdown in traditional protocols. One elder, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, recalled a time when “neighboring nations would meet, discuss, and respect each other’s territories and resources.”
The BC government maintains an uncomfortable position in this conflict. While the province has committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, officials have remained relatively silent on this specific dispute, characterizing it as a matter between First Nations.
My investigation revealed that economic interests also underpin the disagreement. Several major development projects worth millions are proposed within the disputed areas, including forestry operations and a controversial mining project near Slocan Lake.
For Canadian Sinixt descendants like Shelly Boyd, who has family connections on both sides of the border, the situation is heartbreaking. “Our nation was divided by a line we didn’t draw,” she told me during a video call from her home near the border. “Now we’re fighting over who has the right to speak for lands that sustained us all.”
The OKIB lawsuit requests that any assertions of Sinixt territorial rights by American citizens be made through proper consultation with First Nations in Canada whose territories overlap with historical Sinixt lands.
Court hearings are scheduled to begin next month at the BC Supreme Court in Vancouver. Legal experts suggest this case could set important precedents for how cross-border Indigenous rights are recognized and implemented following the Desautel decision.
What’s clear from my investigation is that the dispute represents more than competing land claims – it highlights the ongoing legacy of colonial borders imposed on Indigenous nations and the challenges of reconciliation when the very definition of community has been fragmented by history.
As one lawyer from the Indigenous Bar Association noted, “These are the uncomfortable contradictions Canada must face: how to recognize Indigenous rights across borders while respecting the protocols between First Nations whose relationships predate Canada itself.”
