BC judge orders settlement after 62-year, 0.69-acre road trespass on indigenous land

For legal professionals, this decision underlines the judiciary's reluctance to calculate damages for historic trespasses on indigenous allotted lands without legislated guidance, and the strategic use of settlement directives to bypass contentious limitation and valuation issues. It serves as a cautionary note on the limits of declaratory relief when decades of inaction cloud claims, and signals that government admissions of liability do not automatically equate to court-awarded compensation.

A British Columbia Supreme Court justice has delivered a nuanced ruling in a decades-long property dispute between the provincial government and two members of the Okanagan Indian Band (OKIB), declining to award a multi-million-dollar payout despite finding the province in continuous trespass since 1964. The case, which saw the government admit its encroachment on a 0.69-acre strip of land used for Westside Road, now pivots to a court-directed settlement, raising significant questions about government liability, indigenous land rights, and the remedies available for historical wrongs. Justice Ker’s decision, published in early July 2026, underscores the complex interplay of limitation periods, original title, and the need for negotiated resolution in cases involving public infrastructure.

“

The dispute traces back to 1959, when the OKIB allotted 100 acres at Parker Cove to Harry Parker, father of plaintiff Mildred Rose Bonneau.

The dispute traces back to 1959, when the OKIB allotted 100 acres at Parker Cove to Harry Parker, father of plaintiff Mildred Rose Bonneau. Five years later, a bridge failure at Whiteman’s Creek forced the province to realign Westside Road, cutting through Parker’s property without his consent. While some permissions were obtained from other landowners, documentation was poor, and crucially, none came from Parker. An erroneous 1983 land survey later compounded the error by excluding the road from the property description. The trespass went undetected until at least 1996, when Reynolds John Bonneau became aware of the discrepancy and began years of efforts to correct the survey and assert ownership. A formal request for a new survey was submitted in 2002, but the matter did not reach court until the Bonneaus filed suit in 2022.

Just before trial, the provincial government conceded it had been in continuous trespass since 1964—a significant admission given the public nature of the road and the government’s typical defenses of statutory authority or prescriptive rights. Yet, Justice Ker declined to grant the plaintiffs the millions they sought, instead emphasizing that a settlement, not a judicial damages award, was the appropriate path forward. The judge’s reasoning likely centered on the lengthy delay in pursuing legal action, which could trigger provincial limitation statutes, and the practical difficulties in valuing a partial, long-standing taking of land used for a vital public road. By steering the parties toward negotiation, the court avoided setting a potentially expensive precedent for similar historical encroachments.