Indigenous Territories within Colombia are reserves over which Indigenous Peoples hold title and rights. They are constitutionally recognized political and administrative entities, which comprise approximately one third of Colombia’s geographic area.

The Decree lays out a process for self-determining Indigenous Councils to establish themselves as state recognized bodies with self-governing powers within a delimited geographic area.[4] Where distinct Indigenous authorities have overlapping territories, the process requires consent as between those Indigenous authorities. State recognition leads to an intercultural agreement to clarify powers and functions and the coordination of such with other state and territorial authorities.[5] The framework emphasizes legal pluralism, self-determination, and decision-making guided by Indigenous Peoples’ own systems of knowledge. Article 18 confirms that Indigenous Territories are to be governed by a body formed and regulated in accordance with Indigenous Peoples’ own laws, subject only to the Constitution.

The Decree also outlines mechanisms for strengthening Indigenous jurisdictions. Specifically, legal practitioners must recognize and respect the authority of Indigenous Councils to establish their own judicial norms in accordance with their laws and jurisdiction.[6] Provisions are also included for state financial support to strengthen the exercise of Indigenous jurisdiction and support projects led by Indigenous Peoples within their Territories.[7]

Importantly, the Decree provides that the Colombian government has “no influence whatsoever” on the decisions of an Indigenous Council[8] – signalling the country’s adoption of FPIC.

Drawing Parallels to Canada’s Laws 

Decree 0488/2025 is a recent enactment, and it remains to be seen how it will be implemented. This is a clear and innovative example of how a law can be structured to lend support to the right of self-determination and FPIC. It moves beyond recognition, and implements procedures for legal pluralism and financial support for Indigenous jurisdiction at a broad level, creating a framework that diverse Indigenous nations in Colombia can choose to engage with.[9]

Within Canada’s constitutional framework, legislation and courts play a key role in interpreting and enforcing laws. The enactment of BC’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA),[10] and the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA)[11] require that legislation be consistent with UNDRIP. This means that legislation needs to support pluralism within the legal processes it provides for. Legislation can enable legal pluralism by creating a transparent and stable framework for the operation of both state legal systems and Indigenous legal orders. Legislation can do this while continuing to uphold rights and protect citizens from arbitrary exercises of power – key aspects of the rule of law.

Interpretative principles requiring that legislation be construed as upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples is one pathway towards applying law in a legally plural manner. Another pathway, exemplified in Colombia’s Decree, is to shift legislative frameworks towards explicitly enabling procedures for the exercise of rights and jurisdiction flowing from the right to self-determination. A proposed amendment to the recently passed federal Building Canada Act, put forward by Senator Paul Prosper, demonstrated one way in which the new law could explicitly recognize the right of Indigenous peoples to FPIC.[12] The proposed amendment would have required the Governor in Council to consider the extent to which a project could “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples by fulfilling Canada’s commitment to obtaining free, prior and informed consent of those peoples”.[13] While the amendment did not pass, it is an example to consider as we innovate ways to meet the requirements of DRIPA and UNDA.

In the 2025 Speech from the Throne, His Majesty King Charles III explicitly affirmed Canada’s commitment to upholding FPIC in its approach to Indigenous relations and resource development.[14] Weaving the rights of self-determination and FPIC into Canada’s legislative fabric could support the implementation of this commitment.  As quoted by Senator Prosper using the words of Chief Shelly Moore-Frappier of the Temagami First Nation, “The honour of the Crown is not just ceremonial; it is the moral foundation of your relationship with First Peoples. That honour is on the line.”[15]

  Learning from and understanding developments in other jurisdictions can provide guidance for the implementation of UNDRIP in Canada.  Colombia’s Decree 0488/2025 is an important development showing how innovative legal and institutional mechanisms can support a more pluralistic approach to Crown–Indigenous relations. 

[1] Republic of Colombia, Decreto 0488 de 2025, translated in English (5 May 2025) (“Decree 0488/2025”).

[2] Ibid, in the last paragraph of the introduction.

[3] Ibid, in the third paragraph of the introduction.

[4] Ibid, at arts 5-11.

[5] Ibid, at art 11.

[6] Ibid, at art 25.

[7] Ibid, at art 26.

[8] Ibid, at art 19.

[9] Ibid, at art 6 (para 2). The Decree sets out a framework for when the jurisdictional scope of the Indigenous Territory “is located in more than one reservation or other indigenous territorial entity” . Under such circumstances, this provision requires the application for the Indigenous Territory to be signed by the respective Indigenous governing bodies.

[10] Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SBC 2019, c 44.

[11] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SC 2021, c 14.

[12] Canada, Debates of the Senate (Hansard), 45^th Parl, 1^st Sess, Vol 154, No 16 (26 June 2025) (P. Prosper) at 11:50.

[13] Ibid at 12:20.

[14] Canada, His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Building Canada Strong: A bold, ambitious plan for our future Speech from the Throne to open the first session of the 45th Parliament of Canada (Library and Archives Canada, 2025). 

[15] P. Prosper, supra note 9 at 12:20.

The post Legislating Support for Self-Determination and FPIC: Lessons from Colombia first appeared on British Columbia Law Institute.

In shaping its proposals for wills law reform, the Law Commission of England and Wales found a compelling model in British Columbia’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA), a statute shaped in part by the 2006 BCLI report on succession law. Elements of BCLI’s recommendations now appear in the Law Commission’s 2025 report, Modernising Wills Law. There are several areas where BCLI’s work and that of BCLI’s predecessor, the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia (LRCBC), directly informed the Law Commission’s report.

Dispensing Powers 

Both reform reports share the same premise that testamentary intent should not be defeated by technicalities. BCLI’s recommendation that courts be granted the discretion to validate testamentary documents that fail to meet formal execution requirements, so long as the intent of the will-maker is clear, is represented in section 58 of WESA.

The Law Commission explicitly cited BC as the model for this approach, noting that courts in the province have used dispensing powers responsibly, without a flood of litigation occurring. As a result, the Law Commission recommended that similar judicial dispensing powers be included in the new Wills Act, opening the door to fulfilment of testators’ wishes where formal defects are present.

Expanding Rectification Powers

BC’s reform also expanded the scope of judicial rectification, enabling courts to correct drafting errors that may result from miscommunication or misunderstandings related to will instructions. Expanding these powers signalled a shift away from rigidity, towards outcomes that reflect the true intentions of the deceased.

The Law Commission followed suit by recommending particularly that courts in England and Wales should have greater flexibility to rectify wills in cases involving clerical or drafting errors.

Abolition of Revocation by Marriage

Historically, both Canadian and English law have held that marriage automatically revokes an existing will. BCLI’s report proposed that marriage should no longer revoke a will unless specifically stated, the rationale being that this rule often leads to unintended intestacy, particularly in blended families or among older adults.  WESA implemented this change.

The Law Commission endorsed this position in its 2025 report, recommending an end to automatic revocation upon marriage or civil partnership.

Reducing Minimum Age for Will-Making

Another point of alignment between the two reports is the recommendation to lower the minimum age for making a will to 16 years of age. BCLI’s recommendation stemmed in part from the premise that lowering the minimum age would help to prevent inconveniences resulting from intestacy in cases where minors have interests in valuable assets.

In support of lowering the minimum age, the Law Commission’s report cites BC as a jurisdiction which grants 16 year olds testamentary capacity. Like BCLI, the Law Commission notes that lowering the minimum age requirement will assist children who have significant assets, as well as those who may be experiencing degenerative conditions or other health issues.

Saving Gifts to Subscribing Witnesses and Their Spouses

Traditionally, a person who signs as a witness to a will cannot receive a gift under that will. However, BCLI and the former LRCBC recognized that this could lead to harsh outcomes, especially in cases involving close friends or partners who witnessed the will out of necessity or convenience, not deceit.

In response, WESA grants courts discretion to validate such gifts where no undue influence or fraud is found. The Law Commission adopted a nearly identical stance, recommending that courts in England and Wales be allowed to save gifts to witnesses or their spouses (including same-sex partners) where the circumstances merit it.

Electronic Wills

Perhaps the more future-facing element of both reforms is the recognition of electronic wills. The BCLI report anticipated this shift as early as 2006, noting that legal frameworks would soon need to adapt to digital signatures, online storage, and changing norms around document creation. Later, the first provisions enacted in Canada to validate purely electronic wills were added to WESA, having been developed by the Uniform Law Commission of Canada.

The Law Commission’s 2025 report devotes a chapter to electronic wills, recommending a regulation-making power that would allow such wills to be introduced safely and gradually. Importantly, the Law Commission pointed to jurisdictions like BC as examples of where digital modernization in succession law has been successfully anticipated and legislated.

Conclusion

Though operating in different legal systems, the BCLI and the Law Commission shared a common goal to modernize wills law. From dispensing powers to digital innovations, many of the Law Commission’s recommendations echo proposals developed in BC some time ago. As England and Wales move towards legislative implementation, BC’s leadership stands as an example of how thoughtful law reform can positively ripple across jurisdictions.

The post How British Columbia’s Wills Reform Helped Shape England and Wales’ Proposed Wills Act first appeared on British Columbia Law Institute.

The first draft of the 5th edition is currently out for review with pension experts. BCLI will consider their comments and make edits to the draft over the summer.

The completed 5th edition is expected to be published Fall 2025.

For more details on the project, please visit the project webpage.

The post Project Update: Pension Division Q+A 5th Edition first appeared on British Columbia Law Institute.

Changes to part 6 of the Family Law Act included clarifying and modernizing law on: locked-in retirement accounts and life income funds; private annuities; assignment of survivor benefits; calculation of commuted value; and, administrator fees.

Further, changes to the Division of Pensions Regulation included: requiring the plan administrator to annually notify a limited member who has not yet received benefits of the earliest date of the limited member’s pension eligibility; raising the maximum administrative fee for registering the spouse as a limited member of the plan and for transferring a proportionate share of the member’s defined contribution account to the credit of the spouse; revising forms P1-4 and P6-9; and, repealing form P5.

BCLI has continued its commitment to improving family law in BC through its Pension Division Questions and Answers series. The Q+A is a definitive guide on navigating the complex legal issues that arise when a spousal relationship breaks down and the family property to be divided includes benefits in a pension plan.

On December 19, 2024, the BCLI staff and volunteer editors met to discuss the 5^th edition of Pension Division Q+A. At the meeting, the group determined that potential areas for review included:

• case law;
• terminology;
• annuities;
• prescribed forms;
• administrative fees;
• Family Law Act amendments;
• references to Rutherford v Rutherford (1981 CanLII 726 (BCCA), 127 DLR (3d) 658), a leading case prior to B.C. enacting pension-division legislation;
• industry developments; and,
• locked-in retirement accounts and life income funds.

The 5^th edition Q+A will be an important guide for navigating recent legislative changes, new case law, and evolving pensions practice.

Quick links:

• Bill 17, Family Law Amendment Act, 2023 (first reading)
• Report on Pension Division: A Review of Part 6 of the Family Law Act (PDF)
• Pension Division Questions and Answers 5^th Edition Webpage
• BCLI Blog “BCLI Pension Division Report Recommendations Implemented”
• BCLI Blog “BCLI welcomes pensions division reforms”

The post Pension division reform and fifth edition Q+A updates first appeared on British Columbia Law Institute.