You're correct that the ruling didn't establish a veto. What it did do, however, is quite the opposite of what the author appears to believe it did. Rather than granting "ownership" of unceded lands to a First Nation, it instead granted a limited form of title giving First Nations on untreatied lands the same rights as First Nations on treatied lands. The problem appears to be that the author confuses the concepts of ownership and title. Title doesn't necessarily confer ownership but can imply the existence of limited rights and/or shared interests, in the latter instance in this case between a First Nation and the Crown. Under the current Canadian Constitution, First Nations simply can't acquire outright ownership and control of their lands nor can they obtain an effective veto over development decisions, although they have a right to be consulted. Recent SCC rulings have been consistent on these matters.