Canada: Who Judges Adequacy? A New Arena Emerges In The Duty To Consult

Last Updated: November 7 2012
Article by David Both and A.W. (Sandy) Carpenter

On October 26, 2012, the Joint Review Panel considering Shell's Jackpine Mine Expansion found that it did not have the jurisdiction to assess the adequacy of Crown consultation in respect of Shell's Project. The Panel went on to find that, even if it did have this jurisdiction, a decision would be premature since consultation had not been completed. The Jackpine Panel's decision comes on the heels of an earlier decision by the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) that it did not have the jurisdiction to assess the adequacy of Crown consultation on a similar application by Osum Oil Sands Corporation. (View Bulletin published October 22, 2012)

These decisions highlight a new arena that is emerging in Aboriginal law, regardless of whether consultation has taken place, who is responsible for assessing this – and when.


The Joint Review Panel's decision arose in the context of an application by Shell for an amendment to its existing Jackpine Mine approval. The amendment would add additional oil sands mining locations and related infrastructure and result in an increase in bitumen production of 100,000 barrels per day. The Joint Review Panel is also responsible for making recommendations to the federal Minister of the Environment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012).

On October 1, 2012, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) and Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1 (Métis Nation) filed Notices of Constitutional Questions asking the Panel to determine whether the Crowns in Right of Alberta and Canada had adequately discharged their duty to consult and accommodate the ACFN and Métis Nation with respect to the potential effects of the Jackpine Mine expansion. (A Notice from a third Aboriginal group, the Fort McMurray #468 First Nation, was also filed but subsequently withdrawn.) In the absence of adequate consultation and accommodation the ACFN and Métis Nation asked the Panel to deny Shell's application or to defer it until adequate consultation and accommodation had taken place.

On October 23, 2012, the Panel heard oral submissions on its jurisdiction to consider the Constitutional Questions. View the Proceedings at Hearing (PDF).

The Panel's Decision

The Panel began its decision by setting out various extracts from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Rio Tinto v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43, which establishes the test for the role of administrative tribunals in the duty to consult. In short, the Supreme Court found that, depending on a statutory body's mandate, a decision-maker could be required to carry out the duty to consult, assess the adequacy of consultation, undertake both tasks or neither. The statutory body's role is determined by the express terms of its constituting statute or, in the absence of express provisions addressing this question, by inferring what was intended by reviewing the decision-maker's powers as a whole, including the ability to address questions of law and the body's remedial powers.

Based on the Supreme Court's framework, the Panel concluded that it did not have the express statutory authority to consider the adequacy of consultation. The Panel then went on to consider whether they had the implied power to do so. While the Panel confirmed that they had the power to consider questions of law in relation to matters properly before it, the Panel distinguished Rio Tinto on the basis that there was no Crown conduct before it; effectively adopting the ERCB's conclusion in Osum. The Panel went on to find that it also did not have the ability to grant a remedy that would require the Crown to fulfill its consultation obligations.

In the alternative, the Panel concluded that, even if it did have jurisdiction over the Constitutional Questions, it would be premature to make a decision on Shell's application based on a finding that consultation had been inadequate when the Crown had acknowledged that it has a duty to consult and stated that it would continue to address this duty after the Panel proceeding was concluded. The Panel found that the appropriate time to assess the adequacy of consultation is when the Crown has concluded its consultation process. At that time, Aboriginal groups can decide if they are satisfied with the results of the consultation process or if they wish to seek a remedy to enforce the Crown's obligations to them.

The Panel concluded its decision by highlighting that, even though they had found that they did not have the jurisdiction to consider the adequacy of consultation, it would consider all evidence and argument relating to the potential effects of the Project on Aboriginal groups and individuals in accordance with its Terms of Reference.

View the Panel's decision (PDF).


The Joint Review Panel's decision came a week after the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision in Cold Lake First Nations v. Alberta. In Cold Lake, the Court of Appeal denied Cold Lake's application for leave to appeal the ERCB's Osum decision on the basis that the issue was moot (since Cold Lake had withdrawn its objection to Osum's application). However, the Court expressly pointed to the fact that the issue was to be addressed by the Jackpine Panel as evidence that they expected the matter to be back before the Court in the near future.

It remains to be seen if the Athabasca Chipewyan or the Métis Nation Region 1 will seek to appeal the Joint Review Panel's decision and, if so, when. If leave to appeal the Panel's decision is sought and granted, it will be interesting to see if the Court of Appeal agrees with the Panel's conclusion that there was no contemplated Crown conduct before it. As indicated in our bulletin on the Cold Lake decision, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) had the responsibility to consider the adequacy of consultation on the facts before it in that case.

There are distinctions between the Joint Review Panel's Terms of Reference and the role of the BCUC in Rio Tinto, including the fact that the Agreement establishing the Panel expressly indicated that the Panel "is not required to make any determinations as to whether the Crown has met its respective duties to consult or accommodate in respect of rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982." While the Review Panel did not rely heavily on this provision in its decision, it is difficult to see how it would have the responsibility to consider the adequacy of consultation in the face of this.

While offered as an alternative to the Panel's primary conclusion, an interesting issue also arises in the context of the Panel's further conclusion that, even if they had the jurisdiction, a conclusion on the adequacy of consultation at this time would be premature. In Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC 74, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that consultation to the Environmental Assessment stage of a project could be reviewed for adequacy notwithstanding that other steps still needed to be taken in relation to the project.


Prior to the Supreme Court of Canada's seminal decision in Haida, numerous court cases were argued on the basis that the Crowns did not have a duty to consult on the facts of the case; regardless of the consultation that had in fact occurred in any given circumstance. From a somewhat similar perspective, we are now seeing a steady stream of administrative decision-maker and court decisions addressing the role of various statutory bodies in the consultation process. Again this is regardless of the consultation that has taken place in any given circumstance, raising the possibility of an adverse decision even if the consultation undertaken were adequate.

The vast majority of statutes, including CEAA 2012, do not expressly address this question, leaving a decision-maker's role up to interpretation. The court review of that interpretation can take many years, as it did in Haida, Taku, and Rio Tinto as those cases worked their way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Even if a tribunal such as the Joint Review Panel is right in its assessment of its role, this does not end the inquiry. As pointed out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Rio Tinto, the duty to consult is a constitutional imperative and must be met: "If the tribunal structure set up by the legislature is incapable of dealing with a decision's potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal interests, then the Aboriginal peoples affected must seek appropriate remedies in the courts." Given this, the question arises: if a specific tribunal does not have the power to assess consultation, where and when will this assessment take place in the Crown process in relation to any given decision? Since there must be a venue to consider the adequacy of consultation in relation to Crown conduct, if it is not the specialized tribunal, it will—by necessity—be the Courts.

In the meantime, project proponents and other applicants will have to carefully consider these issues in their own processes. It seems likely that this issue will not be conclusively resolved by the courts, or the legislatures, any time soon.

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.