Pender Harbour Residents Association Files Constitutional Challenge to DRIPA
On February 9, 2026, the Pender Harbour and Area Residents Association (PHARA) filed a Notice of Civil Claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry (Court File No. S-260989), naming the Attorney General of British Columbia as the defendant.
The claim asks the Court to rule on the constitutionality of British Columbia's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), and in particular on whether the Province can enter into agreements that give Indigenous governing bodies statutory decision-making authority, including consent requirements, over provincial permitting decisions affecting non-Indigenous property owners.
Why this matters here
PHARA is a 450-member community association on the Sunshine Coast whose members own waterfront property requiring Land Act tenures for docks. Their circumstances closely mirror our own. Decisions about their foreshore have been shaped by a Foundation Agreement and a Dock Management Plan negotiated between the Province and a First Nation, and members report denied dock tenures, indeterminate waiting periods, impaired access, and effects on property values.
CWVPOS is not a party to this litigation. We are sharing it because the questions PHARA has put before the Court, namely the scope of DRIPA sections 6 and 7 and the accountability of statutory decision-makers to the electorate, are the same questions raised by the processes now affecting Lake Windermere and Columbia Lake.
What PHARA is asking the Court to order
A declaration that DRIPA is inconsistent with section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and of no force and effect to the extent of that inconsistency.
A declaration that DRIPA is beyond the legislative authority of the Province under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
In the alternative, a declaration that section 7 of DRIPA violates the democratic rights guaranteed by section 3 of the Charter.
An interim and interlocutory injunction preventing the Province from entering into further agreements under section 7 of DRIPA.
A declaration that section 3 of DRIPA offends the principle of parliamentary supremacy.
The claim states expressly that it is not a challenge to, or a sign of disrespect for, the constitutionally protected rights of Indigenous peoples, and that PHARA's concerns are directed at the Province rather than at the shishalh Nation.
The full 42-page Notice of Civil Claim as filed is available below.
A response to civil claim from the Attorney General is due within 21 days of service. We will update members as the case proceeds.