A quick read of the SCC decision seems to limit the focus of this ruling on only those aboriginal groups who have not signed treaties with the Crown, and have not given up their title to the lands they occupied. It's a complex ruling that still appears to allow Provincial Legislatures to regulate activites such as logging on lands even where title has been granted. I.E. In cases where title has been granted the trees become vested with the aboriginal group and are no longer 'crown' forests, but can still be regulated by the province like other privately owned land, if they are willing to pass appropriate legislation.

There is still likely to be implications for aboriginal groups whose treaties allow them to use traditional lands, (now crown) for their traditional activities. Obligations to consult will continue, but I can't see anything in this ruling where 'consent' will be required and 'title' to the land can be argued if a treaty has been established with the crown.

No doubt there will be a lot of interpretations as this ruling is disected. It will have huge implcations in BC where there are a number of unresolved claims, and treaties were not entered into with the crown.

SOME PASSAGES IN THE RULING:

The Historic Backdrop

[3] For centuries, people of the Tsilhqot’in Nation — a grouping of six bands sharing common culture and history — have lived in a remote valley bounded by rivers and mountains in central British Columbia. They lived in villages, managed lands for the foraging of roots and herbs, hunted and trapped. They repelled invaders and set terms for the European traders who came onto their land. From the Tsilhqot’in perspective, the land has always been theirs.

[4] Throughout most of Canada, the Crown entered into treaties whereby the indigenous peoples gave up their claim to land in exchange for reservations and other promises, but, with minor exceptions, this did not happen in British Columbia. The Tsilhqot’in Nation is one of hundreds of indigenous groups in British Columbia with unresolved land claims.

............

III. The Jurisprudential Backdrop

[10] In 1973, the Supreme Court of Canada ushered in the modern era of Aboriginal land law by ruling that Aboriginal land rights survived European settlement and remain valid to the present unless extinguished by treaty or otherwise: Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia, [1973] S.C.R. 313. Although the majority in Calder divided on whether title had been extinguished, its affirmation of Aboriginal rights to land led the Government of Canada to begin treaty negotiations with First Nations without treaties – mainly in British Columbia – resuming a policy that had been abandoned in the 1920s: P. W. Hogg, "The Constitutional Basis of Aboriginal Rights", M. Morellato, ed., in Aboriginal Law Since Delgamuukw (2009)