While the press are filling in details of the property effected by the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada, 2025 BCSC 1490 ruling, we have yet to see a single reporter fill in the details of the Justice who made that ruling. Barbara M. Young was grossly inexperienced and completely unqualifed by virtue of obtaining her position on the British Columbia Supreme Court through a Bill C-31 hire, which perferred her over far more qualified candidates because she is a native woman.
Justice Barbara M. Young received a Registered Nursing diploma in 1975 from Mohawk College. She received a Bachelor of Arts with distinction in 1983 and a Bachelor of Laws in 1985, both from the University of Calgary, and was admitted to the Bar of British Columbia in 1986. She was a partner with Berge Horn and a number of other firms. She practised primarily in the areas of family law, personal injury, and bankruptcy. She was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2005.
Originally from St. Catharines, Barbara M. Young was appointed Master and Registrar of Bankruptcies (Central Okanagan) with the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2006.
| Barbara Mary Young was appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia to fill a new position created by Bill C-31 in 2015. |
Bill C-31, officially titled “An Act to Amend the Indian Act”, was passed in 1985 to address gender discrimination in the Indian Act and to restore Indian status to those who had lost it due to discriminatory provisions, predominantly women who had lost their Indian status or band membership due to marriage to non-natives. Barbara M. Young wasn’t appointed to the high court because of merit, she was appointed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia because she is a native woman.
Bill C-31 also aimed to allow bands to control their own membership as a step towards self-government.
See —– Cowichan Tribes v. Canada, 2025 BCSC 1490
This past weekend I attended the CBA BC Woman Lawyer’s Forum in Vernon BC with my good friends and colleagues Kathryn Sainty and Sonia Virk. Beautiful setting at Sparkling Hills. It was a real privilege to meet the Honourable Madam Justice Barbara M. Young and the Honourable Judge Cathie Heinrichs both of whom shared views from the bench to the woman lawyer attendees. (2017)
It is June 2016. A citizen (name redacted) appears before rookie Justice Barbara M. Young. His offense? Under a gag order, he sent an e-mail to a 3rd party banker at a tier one bank asking for contact information. The 3rd party wasn’t named in the gag order. He was the brother-in-law of the man at the center of the other side. At appearance, the citizen tried to present evidence of perjury of plaintiff affidavits. Justice Barbara M. Young refused to hear evidence, ruled a breach of the gag order, and called the citizen ‘disingenuous’. Opposing counsel (name redacted) argued strenuously for incarceration, but then suddenly dropped that demand near the end of the hearing.
Justice Barbara M. Young applauded him for being ‘kind’. Young’s finding of contempt after declining to hear evidence would be used and reused multiple times in subsequent plaintiff hearings.
It is February 2018. Opposition make another claim of contempt before their preferred Justice Barbara M. Young, based on her previous ruling and a demonstrably false affidavit claiming another breach. The matter was by then subject to a settlement agreement between the parties. Justice Barbara M. Young again refused to hear defence evidence and threatened to toss the executed settlement and reopen the case. The citizen consented to a suspended jail sentence to avoid being locked up by Justice Barbara M. Young.
There was a CJC (Candian Judicial Council) complaint made against Justice Barbara M. Young. As with 97% of all complaints every year to the CJC it was dismissed by a peon before being considered.
Leave a Reply