Canada: The Court Of Appeal For British Columbia Confirms That Consultation By The Province On Decision To Incorporate Municipality Was Adequate

Last Updated: August 15 2012
Article by Charles F. Willms


In Adams Lake Indian Band v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the Province failed to adequately consult with the petitioner, Adams Lake Indian Band, prior to creating the Sun Peaks Mountain Resort Municipality by an Order in Council. The Supreme Court made a declaration that the Province did not fulfill its duty to consult with the petitioner with respect to the incorporation, and ordered the Province to engage in deep consultation with the petitioner regarding the incorporation decision. The Supreme Court decided it was not appropriate to dictate terms of reference for further consultation.

On August 9, 2012 the BC Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from the Supreme Court decision and dismissed the Petition, finding that the Province discharged any consultation duty it had to the Adams Lake Band in relation to the incorporation of the Sun Peaks Resort Municipality.  The Court of Appeal also held that the other matters taken into account in relation to past Crown conduct or continuing Crown conduct by the Supreme Court Judge were not proper matters for consideration on the Petition.


The petitioner, the Adams Lake Indian Band, is a member of the Secwepemc Nation, which claims a traditional territory covering close to 180,000 square kilometres.  The Sun Peaks ski area, located 40 km north of Kamloops, is located within the territory claimed by the Secwepemc Nation.

Sun Peaks was a small ski hill known as Tod Mountain until the 1990s. In 1993, the Provincial government entered into a master development agreement with Tod Mountain Development Ltd. (now Sun Peaks Resort Corporation) that contemplated a phased expansion of the ski hill by the development of resort facilities and other recreational improvements. This facilitated rapid expansion of the ski resort, and in turn, created increased conflict with the Secwepemc Nation and its members. In the midst of this ongoing conflict, the residents of Sun Peaks sought to attain status as an incorporated municipality.

The process towards incorporation began in 2005 when a group of volunteers from the community developed a feasibility study. The Province first became involved in the incorporation process in December 2006, when it provided a grant to cover the costs of the study and the public meetings on the subject.

In January 2007, one of the members of the Secwepemc Nation wrote to the Regional District and to Sun Peaks Resort Corporation expressing opposition to the incorporation and asking for a meeting to discuss the situation. From that point onward, the parties engaged in consultation regarding the incorporation, and related topics such as the Sun Peaks master development agreement.

In July 2009, the Province advised certain members of the Secwepemc Nation that its position was that consultation was complete, as the questions posed by the bands had been answered.  The Province's position was that any issues raised by the bands had been accommodated by the creation of a municipal First Nations Advisory Committee, and by a requirement for the Provincial government to approve the municipality's land use plan and by-laws. The Province emphasized that the primary concern it had heard from the bands was the development of Sun Peaks resort, and that this would be addressed through the ongoing consultation process with respect to the master development agreement. The Secwepemc Nation rejected this position. The Supreme Court found that after July 2009, the Province "was only going through the motions" to complete the incorporation consultation, and that the bands involved legitimately lost interest in participating.

The Order in Council incorporating the municipality was signed on March 25, 2010.

Supreme Court Decision

Orders in Council and the Duty to Consult

The Supreme Court held that the duty to consult does apply to the exercise of a statutory power (such as incorporation of a municipality by Order in Council).  The Supreme Court found that all steps leading up to the decision to incorporate engaged the honour of the Crown, and that there was no justification for insulating the Order in Council from the duty to consult because it had a legislative character.

The Crown's Strength of Claim and Impacts Assessments

The Supreme Court found that the Province did not conduct a preliminary assessment of the strength of claim for the petitioner, and accordingly that the Province failed to adequately fulfill the first stage of the consultation process.

With respect to impacts, the Province's position was that the incorporation had no significant impact because it maintained the status quo, and the petitioner's real concern was the development of the resort. The Supreme Court found that the Province misconceived the impacts of the incorporation on the petitioner's rights and title. In particular, the Supreme Court found, among other things, that the incorporation resulted in the municipality exercising control over many aspects of local government that would be subject to a duty to consult with First Nations if exercised by the Crown, but that the municipality did not have a duty to consult.

The Adequacy of Consultation

The Supreme Court found that the petitioner had a strong claim and faced highly significant potential adverse impacts as a result of the incorporation of the municipality, and therefore the duty to consult with the petitioner was at the level of "deep consultation".

The accommodation provided by the Province in respect of the concerns raised by the petitioner was a requirement that the municipality establish a First Nations Advisory Committee. The Supreme Court found that this accommodation was not responsive to the concerns raised by the petitioner. For example, the Supreme Court noted that the municipality is not required to consult with the Advisory Committee, and the Committee did little to redress the balance of power and influence as between the bands and the Sun Peaks Resort Corporation.

As a result, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner was not adequately consulted regarding the decision to incorporate the municipality.


The Supreme Court made a declaration that the Province did not fulfill its duty to consult with the petitioner with respect to the incorporation, and ordered the Province to engage in deep consultation with the petitioner regarding the decision to incorporate. The Supreme Court decided it was not appropriate to dictate terms of reference for the further consultation beyond what was expressly set out in the reasons for decision.

Court of Appeal Decision

Orders in Council and the Duty to Consult

The Court of Appeal did not disturb the conclusion of the Supreme Court Judge that the Province had a duty to consult with the Petitioners in relation to the incorporation of the municipality.

The Crown's Strength of Claim and Impacts Assessments

The Court of Appeal decided that in light of the conclusion of the Supreme Court Judge that:

... the change in local government from a regional district/improvement district form of governance to an incorporated municipality on its face placed the Band in no worse position tha[n] it was before incorporation.

it was not necessary for the Province to provide a strength of claim assessment.  The Court of Appeal said:

... that it was not necessary in this case for the Ministry of Community or the court to do an analysis of the strength of the claim to Aboriginal rights and title.  As will become clear, the impact of incorporation on the Bands' claim to rights and title was and remains insubstantial.  This is so regardless of the strength of the claim that would have been revealed by a strength-of-claim analysis.

The Court of Appeal also confirmed that the only relevant Crown conduct to be considered in relation to the duty to consult was the incorporation of the municipality.  The Court of Appeal noted, with respect to allegations of prior failures to consult and failure to discharge ongoing consultation obligations:

[69]        These passages and others show that the chambers judge included in her analysis the continuing land-use issues and the issues advanced by the Bands as to the past development of Sun Peaks.  Continuing land-use issues involve the proposed amendments to the MDA and the changes to timber resources supervision, the subjects of ongoing consultation.  Past development impact issues remain to be addressed in a final judicial or negotiated determination of the claim to Aboriginal title and rights – see Rio Tinto at para. 49

The Adequacy of Consultation

The Court of Appeal conclusion that consultation was adequate was succinct:

[78]        In my view, it follows that the consultation with respect to the issue of incorporation of the Municipality as described above was adequate.  The Ministry of Community provided information about the structure of the intended mountain resort municipality and the legal effects of incorporation.  It also gave the Bands more than sufficient opportunity to respond.  The process was as thorough and as comprehensive as the circumstances required.  I disagree with the conclusions of the chambers judge to the contrary.  Those conclusions were coloured by broader consultation considerations than were appropriate or necessary.  The judge erred by not analyzing the adequacy of consultation with respect to the incorporation matter alone. 

[79]        I also consider that the accommodation made by the Province was reasonable.  As the chambers judge noted, there was a requirement that the Municipality form a First Nations advisory committee, at least until the end of 2014, a First Nations role that did not exist under the existing form of local governance. 


The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the Petition


There is still a difference of opinion between the Alberta Courts and the BC Courts on whether a duty to consult applies to a legislative act such as the issuance of an Order in Council. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to resolve this issue in Rio Tinto. At some point, it is likely that the issue will have to be resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal has made it clear that:

1.         Allegations of past Crown conduct, or continuing Crown conduct, on which consultation was or is allegedly inadequate are not relevant to the determination of the question of whether consultation on the impugned Crown conduct is adequate.

2.         Where the impacts of the Crown conduct on the asserted rights is insubstantial, there is no requirement for the Crown, or the Court, to consider the strength of claim of the First Nation, and

3.         "[63] ... It is not generally the role of the court to supervise ongoing consultations and provide directions as to how they are to be conducted.  It is only where there has been a breach by government of the duty to consult that a legal remedy might be sought, usually by way of a petition for the suspension or quashing of a government initiative.  Pleadings define the issues before the court and the inquiry by the court should be limited thereby.  The court should avoid involvement in ongoing consultations."

Link to Decision

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 Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions