Canada: Courts In B.C. And Ontario Stop Exploration On Mining Projects For Failure To Consult

On December 2, 2011, the B.C. Supreme Court, in Taseko Mines Limited v. Phillips (Taseko Mines)1 granted the Tsilhqot'in First Nation's (Tsilhqot'in) application for an injunction to restrain Taseko Mines Limited (Taseko) from continuing exploratory work under two permits while the Tsilhqot'in pursued judicial review of B.C.'s decision to grant the permits. On January 3, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in Wahgoshig First Nation v. Ontario and Solid Gold Resources Corp.2 (Wahgoshig First Nation) came to the same result and granted the Wahgoshig First Nation (Wahgoshig) an injunction to stop Solid Gold Corp.'s (Solid Gold) exploratory work while the Wahgoshig claimed that the Crown's duty to consult had not been met. In both cases, the courts relieved the Aboriginal applicants from providing an undertaking for damages. Both courts took similar approaches to weighing potential harm when balancing commercial and Aboriginal interests and took similar positions on how the conduct of commercial enterprises can affect the requirement of First Nations to provide an undertaking in damages.


Taseko Mines involved permits to undertake more exploratory work and to clear timber granted by the B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) while Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) undertook a 90-day study to determine if Taseko's new project description should go to environmental assessment.3

In Wahgoshig First Nation, Solid Gold began exploratory drilling on Treaty 9 lands without prior consultation despite repeated warnings from the Crown that consultation was necessary and attempts by Wahgoshig to initiate consultation with Solid Gold.

Unlike in Taseko Mines Limited, it appears that Solid Gold was not required to obtain any additional permits from the Crown in order to carry out its exploration program, but rather relied on its rights to carry out exploration work as the holder of a mining claim under the Mining Act.4 In this case, the "Crown conduct" in question giving rise to the Crown's duty to consult appears to be the enactment of the Mining Act itself, which establishes not only a "free entry" system whereby all Crown lands are open for prospecting and staking, but also grants a holder of a mineral claim the right to carry out exploration work without necessarily needing to obtain any additional permits.5

The Decisions

In applying the test for injunctive relief established by the decision in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (AG),6 both courts considered if there was a serious issue to be tried, the nature of the potential harm and the balance of convenience.

In Taseko Mines, the Court found that whether the Crown had discharged its duty to consult in issuing exploration and cutting permits to Taseko was a serious question to be tried.7

In Wahgoshig First Nation, the Court found that the alleged failure of the Crown to satisfy its duty to consult was a serious question to be tried.The Court did not comment directly on the constitutionality of the Mining Act when dealing with the "serious issue" matter, but recognized that the duty to consult is not constrained by legislation and lies upstream of any legislative or statutory regime.8

With respect to the question of irreparable harm, both courts reached similar results but by slightly different routes. In Wahgoshig First Nation, the Court based its finding on irreparable harm on both development and lack of consultation. Although not making the link directly between irreparable harm to Aboriginal rights and development, the Court found that the Wahgoshig continue to exercise traditional rights over the lands and referred to jurisprudence that linked development on traditional lands to irreparable harm. The Court also emphasized that Canadian courts have recognized the loss of the opportunity to consult as an irreparable harm in itself.9

In Taseko Mines, Grauer J. found that loss of consultation is not necessarily an irreparable harm in itself, but a factor to consider when weighing the balance of convenience:

Taseko and the Crown rely on Sunshine Logging (2004) Ltd. v. Prior, 2011 BCSC 1044, for the proposition that "the loss of the constitutional right ... to be consulted does not itself amount to irreparable harm" (para.30). Mr. Justice Willcock went on, however, to reflect at paragraph 34 that "it ought not to be said that irreparable harm arises in every case where there is a failure to consult". What he makes clear in paragraph 32 is that while a failure to consult need not without more signify irreparable harm, it nevertheless remains to be weighed in determining the balance of convenience.10

Grauer J. concluded that without the injunction the Tsilhqot'in "will have lost their asserted right to be consulted at a deep level in relation to the exploration program, and their petition will become moot."11

Both courts found that this potential harm to the respective Aboriginal rights and the public interest weighed in favour of granting the injunctions. While the Court in Taseko Mines acknowledged a public interest in Taseko gathering information for the sake of the environmental assessment,12 the public's interest in the "reconciliation of the competing interests"13 weighed more heavily. In Wahgoshig First Nation, the Court was not swayed by the Crown's argument that granting the injunction would increase tensions and that the Court should instead assist the Crown in facilitating a consultation process to promote reconciliation.14 Rather, it found that the greater public interest resided in ensuring that respect for the constitutionally protected right for Aboriginal peoples to be consulted was not eroded.15 The commercial interests of the mining companies did not stack up against both the potential irreparable harm to the respective Aboriginal rights themselves and the public interest in balancing and reconciling interests through consultation. In Taseko Mines the Court noted that, even though Taseko's interests may be harmed, a delay of a few months and its associated costs weigh less heavily in the context of a billion-dollar project that has taken 20 years to bring to fruition.16 Even "serious financial jeopardy which could put [Solid Gold] out of business"17 did not tip the balance of convenience in favour of the mining company in Wahgoshig First Nation.

In relieving the Tsilhqot'in of the requirement to provide an undertaking in damages, the Court in Taseko Mines considered how heavily the balance of convenience favoured the Tsilhqot'in, the relative economic strength of the parties, the importance of matters proceeding on an appropriate basis in the future and noted that the Tsilhqot'in advised Taseko not to commence work under the permits until they had considered their options for response.18 In Wahgoshig First Nation, the Court simply noted precedent allowed for waiving the requirement when the applicant was "impecunious" or when the respondent's behaviour was "egregious."19 This comment, however, must be read in light of the Court's earlier conclusions that Solid Gold made a "concerted, willful effort not to consult, at least until after its flow-through share monies for 2011 had been exhausted"20 and it "failed to meet industry standards for responsible exploration."21


Factually, Taseko Mines is a different decision from Wahgoshig First Nation. Unlike in Wahgoshig First Nation, the Tsihlqot'in were informed about Taseko's proposed activities and provided with the opportunity to engage in consultation prior to the work being undertaken. Ultimately, it appears the Tsihlqot'in decided not to participate in consultation because they did not agree with the process established by the Crown. In Wahgoshig First Nation, both the Crown and the Wahgoshig agreed that the Crown's consultation obligations had been not been satisfied, however, there was no mechanism for this consultation to occur absent Solid Gold voluntarily agreeing to delay following its legal rights.

With respect to the question of irreparable harm, the Court in Taseko Mines did not find that the failure to fulfill the duty to consult was an irreparable harm in and of itself. Nevertheless, this was a factor considered by the Court in determining that exploration on lands subject to Aboriginal rights without consultation could constitute not just damage to Aboriginal land and interests ancillary to it but potentially a permanent diminution of Aboriginal rights. The way in which the Court characterized the potential harm to Aboriginal interests would make it difficult for commercial interests to outweigh Aboriginal interests when courts determine the merits of granting injunctive relief. As Grauer J. comments:

Each new incursion serves only to narrow further the habitat left to them in which to exercise their traditional rights. Consequently, each new incursion becomes more significant than the last...The damage is irreparable...The geology will always be there. The ore bed is not going anywhere. The same cannot be said of the habitat that is presently left to the petitioners. Once disturbed, it is lost. Once lost, the exercise of Aboriginal rights is further diminished.22

Notably, the Court in Taseko Mines did not address in detail the actual physical impacts of the proposed exploration activities on the land other than in the most general of terms. This is surprising given the significance of irreparable harm to the analysis.

In Wahgoshig First Nation, the Court noted that the low level exploration activity carried out by Solid Gold involved clearing 25 m2 areas, clearing forest, bulldozing access routes to the drilling sites and transportation and storage of fuels and equipment.23 Clearly, the Court did not see the potential impacts of these activities on Aboriginal interests as the "speculative assertions of possible harms to vaguely defined interests,"24 as characterised by Solid Gold. Given the actions of Solid Gold in proceeding with its exploration program despite the protestations of both the Wahgoshig and the Crown and the fact that no consultation had actually occurred, it is not surprising that an injunction was granted in Wahgoshig First Nation. In our view, the outcome of this decision is less interesting than the underlying challenge to the Mining Act and the practical implications to the right of free entry in Ontario (as further discussed below).

With respect to providing undertakings as to damages, the attempts of Solid Gold in Wahgoshig First Nation to avoid consulting directly with the Wahgoshig clearly played a role in the Court's decision not to require an undertaking in damages.25 In Taseko Mines, the Court was similarly willing to find that special circumstances existed in relieving the Tsilhqot'in from providing an undertaking as to damages, which included the fact that the Tsihlqot'in wrote to Taseko requesting them not to commence work under the permits until they had considered their response.26 The Tsihlqot'in delivered this letter not only after MEM's deadline for submissions regarding the permits, but also after the permits were granted. That the Court considered this letter a factor indicates that, in certain instances at least, some courts may expect a third party proponent to do more than simply follow their legal rights.

The Crown in Wahgoshig First Nation is in the awkward position in which it confirmed to the Court that the duty to consult existed and had not been met but, practically speaking, did not have the statutory power to prevent Solid Gold from following its rights under the Mining Act. In this respect, Wahgoshig First Nation raises many of the same issues from the recent decision of the Yukon Supreme Court in River Dena Council v. Government of Yukon (Ross River) (see our Aboriginal Law Update dated November 30, 2011). The Crown took no position on the injunction motion; however, it requested that the Court impose a consultation process rather than grant the injunction since an injunction would further polarize the parties.

The constitutional challenge to the Mining Act which underlies the decision in Wahgoshig First Nation will be an issue to watch. Although Ontario's Mining Act is different from the mining legislation in the Yukon in that it does expressly grant a specific basket of exploration rights, it appears that the ability to carry out exploration work without applying for additional authorizations has now attracted a similar challenge by an Aboriginal group in Ontario. As noted in our Aboriginal Law Update on Ross River, most Canadian jurisdictions provide that rights to carry out invasive exploration activities are not automatically granted upon the registration of a mineral claim. Rather, additional authorizations from the Crown are usually required in order to carry out any significant exploration work, thereby providing an opportunity for consultation to occur. The position taken by the Crown in Wahgoshig First Nation regarding remedy by the courts (i.e., obligation to consult rather than injunction) is surprising. In the absence of a legislated requirement to consult under the free entry system (which the Crown submits triggers the duty to consult), an injunction provides the Crown with a tool to force mining companies to consult prior to exploration activities under the Mining Act, whereas the Crown's proposed remedy could result in further delays before the courts.

In our view, these types of challenges to mining legislation are not surprising where there is the potential for adverse impacts on Aboriginal interests without a corresponding ability on the part of the Crown to carry out its consultation obligations. Whether such challenges will ultimately be successful remains to be seen (we note that the Supreme Court of Canada in Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council left open the question of whether government conduct includes legislative action).27 Nevertheless, in our view governments should be cautious to protect the right of free entry, which is so critical to the exploration and mining sectors in Canada and elsewhere in the world, by ensuring that the right to carry out invasive exploration work is not automatically tied to recording a mineral tenure (or, where tied, there is a proper legislative mechanism for the Crown to carry out its consultation obligations).28 If not, governments risk not only having their mining legislation challenged, but potentially may also face legal action by third party proponents that are prevented from following their legal rights. Indeed, Solid Gold announced on January 24, 2012 that it is pursuing legal action against the government of Ontario in which it is seeking damages of $100 million.


1 2011 BCSC 1675.

2 2011 ONSC 7708.

3 Supra, note 1 at paras. 10 and 13.

4 RSO 1990, c. M. 14 (Mining Act).

5 We note that in most cases, exploration work would generally trigger the need for a proponent to obtain permits under other environmental legislation but this does not appear to have been the case in Wahgoshig First Nation.

6 [1994] 1 S.C.R. 31.

7 Supra, note 1 at para. 48.

8 Supra, note 2, at para. 41.

9 Ibid. at para. 53.

10 Supra, note 1 at para. 56.

11 Ibid. at para. 57.

12 Ibid. para. 59.

13 Ibid. at para. 60.

14 Supra, note 2 at paras. 3 and 69.

15 Ibid. para. 72.

16 Supra, note 1 at para. 55.

17 Supra, note 2 at para. 67.

18 Supra, note 1 para. 70.

19 Supra, note 2 at para. 77.

20 Ibid. at para. 58.

21 Ibid. at para 59.

22 Supra, note 1 at paras. 65 and 66.

23 Supra, note 2, at para. 12.

24 Ibid. at para. 67.

25 Ibid. at paras. 58, 59 and 77

26 Ibid. at para. 70.

27 [2010] 2 S.C.R. 650 at para. 44.

28 Until recently, British Columbia was a good example of this separation. The B.C. Mineral Tenure Act provided the basis on which a party may record a mineral claim based on a free entry system. Once a claim was recorded, any invasive exploration activities would require a permit under section 10 of the B.C. Mines Act. In this way, free entry was preserved while the Crown maintained the statutory power to meet its obligations to consult Aboriginal peoples prior to a private third party carrying out invasive exploration activities on the claim. However, British Columbia has recently introduced amendments to the B.C. Mines Act that will exempt a greater number of exploration activities from this permitting requirement. While the changes are welcome to many in the mining industry, in our view, there is a risk that these changes may lead to challenges to the B.C. mining legislation similar to those in the Yukon and Ontario unless proper mechanisms are created for Aboriginal consultation to occur.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.