The Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that governments must consult with First Nations before developing land that aboriginal groups claim to own -- even if the titles have not been proven through courts or treaties.

But this ruling does not extend to private industry developers.

And although governments are under duty to consult, they are not obliged to receive consent before using land.

"Rather, the commitment is to a meaningful process of consultation," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote for the court.

"As for aboriginal claimants, they must not frustrate the Crown's reasonable good faith attempts," McLachlin wrote. "Nor should they take unreasonable positions to thwart governments from making decisions or acting in cases where, despite meaningful consultation, agreement is not reached."

The landmark ruling is significant because more than 1,000 unsettled land claims affect most of British Columbia and much of the country. It is the highest court's first endeavour to establish ground rules and define unresolved questions.

"We're not interested in dispossessing anyone or taking away what people have,'' said Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. "We're interested in fair and just compensation.''

This ruling could mean lengthy litigation for aboriginal groups. "These court decisions invite more negotiations and more litigation,'' Edward John, grand chief of the First Nations Summit told Canadian Press. The group represents about 140 B.C. bands in treaty negotiations.

"The ball is in the hands of the governments now. They need to sit down, as the court says, and deal with us. They can't run roughshod over the interests of our people.''

The decision "does not say that the old attitude of the British Columbia government is consistent with the honour of the Crown," Native legal counsel Arthur Pape said after the ruling.

Pape said the question had never been one of consent. "It's always been an issue of making sure that the interest of the people who were here first are taken care of so that new developments are not done at the expense of their traditional way of life."

Government lawyer Mitch Taylor told reporters that the decision meant the duty of the Crown would depend on individual circumstances.

Taylor said, "The content is going to vary depending on how serious the impact might be and the strength of the claim that is put forward."

Taylor called consultation "a two-way street" and said it would be meaningful and "in good faith."
Canada's highest court made the decisive ruling on Thursday after hearing the two cases in March. The cases were the result of two B.C. Court of Appeal rulings.

Government and private industry lawyers argued that conferring with aboriginal groups was not a constitutional obligation before logging, mining or developing land, if claims were not yet proven.

"We need a road map,'' Anne Giardini, a lawyer for Weyerhaeuser, one of the companies involved in the court decision, told Canadian Press before the ruling.

"Where do you go? Who do you talk to? Who decides?"

Three justices of the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled unanimously against the B.C. government two years ago.

One ruling involved the Tlingit First Nation and a mining project proposed by Redfern Resources Ltd. that required government approval.

The Appeal Court said the B.C. government did not properly consult with the First Nations, but on Thursday Supreme Court said that there was sufficient consultation.

In the second ruling, the Haida challenged a B.C. Forests Ministry decision to renew a tree farm licence in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

The Appeal Court had ruled that private industry and government must consult with aboriginal groups on how to develop Crown lands.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court said there had been minimal contact between the Crown and the First Nations people.

With files from Canadian Press