Canada: Aboriginal Consultation: Recent Highlights - May 2013

We enclose an update of some recent noteworthy cases and developments concerning aboriginal law and the duty to consult.


Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1 v Joint Review Panel, 2012

The Joint Review Panel held that it did not have statutory authority to consider the adequacy of Crown consultation in relation to the proposed project. The duty to consult with First Nations rests with the Crown and, as there was no contemplated Crown conduct before the panel, the Joint Review Panel's approval and conditions for the project could not direct the Crown's conduct with respect to consultation. In any event, discussing the adequacy of Crown consultation was premature, given that consultation was ongoing and had not been deemed complete by the Crown. The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the First Nations' application for leave to appeal, holding that the Joint Review Panel had discretion to decide not to consider the adequacy of consultation and in any event, it was inappropriate to review the panel's decision before completion of the hearing. (Read the decision.)

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the First Nations' leave to appeal application on April 11, 2013.

Cold Lake First Nations v Alberta (Energy Resources and Conservation Board)

The Cold Lake First Nation sought leave to appeal an ERCB decision that held it did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the Crown discharged its duty to consult and accommodate the First Nation in relation to adverse impacts on treaty rights. The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the leave application on the basis that the issue was now moot as the First Nation had subsequently withdrawn its objection to the development. The court noted, however, that as there was ongoing consultation between the First Nation and the province, the issue would come before the ERCB in the future in the context of an actual dispute. (Read the decision.)

Cold Lake First Nation v Alberta (Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation)

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Alberta breached its duty to consult by unilaterally terminating a negotiation process regarding the expansion of a recreational area into traditional First Nations territory. Specifically, Alberta had concluded consultation arbitrarily and had failed to take into account the First Nation's government election, which prevented the First Nation from properly commenting on the proposed expansion before construction was commenced. The appeal of this decision is scheduled to be heard by the Court of Appeal in June 2013. (Read the decision.)

Alberta Consultation Policy/Proposed Legislation

The province of Alberta has released drafts of its proposed updated First Nations consultation documents for review and comment. The proposed documents include an updated First Nations Consultation Policy, First Nations Consultation Corporate Guidelines and a First Nations Consultation Matrix.

Bill 22, the Aboriginal Consultation Levy Act, has received first reading. The proposed legislation would establish a Consultation Levy Fund from the levies paid by proponents with respect to provincially regulated activity. The Consultation Levy Fund would be used to make grants to First Nations to assist in developing capacity to participate in and meet the costs of required Crown consultation.

British Columbia

Behn v Moulton Contracting Ltd.

The issue in this case was whether certain individual members of a First Nation had standing to argue that logging licenses were issued in breach of a constitutional duty to consult and therefore void. The individual First Nation members raised the alleged breach of aboriginal and treaty rights as a defence to the tort action brought against them by the logging company.

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that as the duty to consult exists to protect the collective rights of Aboriginal Peoples, the individual First Nation members could not assert a breach of this duty based on the pleadings and absent authorization from the First Nation. The court left open, without deciding, whether the individuals could challenge the legality of the authorizations on the basis that they breached individual as opposed to collective rights to hunt and trap under Treaty No. 8. Finally, the court held that the defence alleging a breach of the duty to consult was an abuse of process as no attempt had been made to legally challenge the authorizations by way of judicial review or injunction at the time they were issued. (Read the decision.)

Neskonlith Indian Band v Salmon Arm (City)

The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a petition brought by the Neskonlith Indian Band to quash a development permit issued by the City of Salmon Arm to a shopping centre developer. The band had argued that the city had a duty to consult prior to issuing the permit. The Court of Appeal held that municipalities, as creatures of statute, do not generally have any authority or duty to consult with and accommodate First Nations unless such duty or authority is contained in specific legislation. (Read the decision.)

Adams Lake Indian Band v British Columbia (Lieutenant Governor in Council)

The province of British Columbia was found to have discharged its duty to consult with the Adams Lake Indian Band in relation to the incorporation of Sun Peaks Mountain Resort Municipality. The British Columbia Court of Appeal found that the decision to incorporate was a discrete issue that could be separated from larger outstanding land claims issues. (Read the decision.)

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the First Nation's leave to appeal application on April 11, 2013.

Halalt First Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Environment)

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the minister of environment from a decision that concluded the province failed to adequately consult and accommodate the Halalt First Nation before issuing an environment certificate for a well project. The court held that the First Nation was not entitled to be consulted with respect to its aboriginal title claim in the environmental assessment. In addition, the Crown is not required to consult First Nations about proposed future plans to modify or extend a project. Consultation is only required with respect to the aspects of the project to be approved at any particular point in time. (Read the decision.)

Taseko Mines Limited v Phillips

The Xeni Gwet'in and Tsilhqot'in First Nations sought an interim injunction to prevent Taseko Mines from proceeding with mining exploration work until there had been a hearing of the First Nations' application for judicial review of the Crown's decision to issue the underlying permits. Taseko sought its own injunction after an attempt to carry out the work was stopped by a First Nation blockade. The First Nations' application for an injunction was granted while Taseko's was dismissed. The question of whether the Crown had satisfied its duty to consult was a serious question to be tried. Without an injunction, the First Nations would lose their right to be consulted deeply in relation to the exploration program. (Read the decision.)


Keewatin v Ontario (Natural Resources)

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the province of Ontario did not require the federal government's approval to "take up" lands under a harvesting clause of Treaty 3 of October 3, 1873, which granted the Ojibway the right to hunt and fish throughout the surrendered lands, except on those tracts "required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by [the] Government of the Dominion of Canada."

Overturning the trial judge's decision, the Court of Appeal emphasized that the Ojibway's treaty partner is the Crown, not any particular level of government, and that since ownership of the treaty lands had devolved to Ontario, so had the power to take up lands and responsibility for discharging the Crown's treaty obligations. The Court of Appeal also held that subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 did not include a supervisory power over the taking up of treaty lands, as it would render illusory provincial jurisdiction over the disposition of management of public lands and forests within the province. (Read the decision.)

Mining Act modernization

On April 1, 2013, new regulations under Ontario's Mining Act took effect. The Exploration Plans and Exploration Permits regulation sets out new requirements for notification of surface rights owners, aboriginal consultation and rehabilitation in respect of exploration activities.

The regulatory scheme is graduated, with higher-impact activities, such as line cutting, mechanized drilling and pitting and trenching, requiring an exploration permit, which is subject to the approval of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM). Prior to granting a permit, the MNDM must consider comments from aboriginal communities and other stakeholders on the permit application and the consultation conducted by the proponent. The MNDM has the authority to order further consultation, to temporarily put a pending application on "hold," or to deny a permit altogether.

Low-impact activities, on the other hand, require the submission of an exploration plan, which the MNDM provides to affected aboriginal communities for their comment and review. Prior consultation is encouraged, but not required. Such low-impact activities may commence 30 days after circulation of the plan unless the director of exploration requires that a permit be obtained for one or more of the activities, which the director has the discretion to require if, for example, there are significant issues raised by aboriginal communities in response to the plan. The regulation also sets forth a dispute resolution mechanism for disputes between aboriginal communities and the proponents related to a permit application.

Mining Act modernization also comprised a number of amending regulations, which came into effect on November 1, 2012. The Assessment Work regulation was amended to make aboriginal consultation costs eligible for assessment work credits (provided that geoscience assessment work has been performed and is reported at the same time). Amendments to the Mine Development and Closure regulation require that aboriginal consultation be conducted in accordance with a written direction from the director of mine rehabilitation, prior to a proponent submitting a certified closure plan. The direction will include which aboriginal communities are to be consulted, whether a proposed plan for consultation is required to be prepared, and when interim reports are required. As with the exploration regulations, the amendments also impose a dispute resolution process to govern disputes between proponents and affected aboriginal communities.


Ross River Dena Council v Yukon

The Ross River Dena Council appealed a decision concluding that mere notice of newly recorded quartz mining claims within their traditional territory satisfied the Crown's duty to consult. The Quartz Mining Act only required a party seeking to acquire mineral rights to physically stake a claim and record it with the Mining Recorder. The Court of Appeal held that the statutory regime for acquiring quartz mining claims failed to provide a mechanism for consultation with First Nations, and therefore it was necessary for the Crown to augment the statutory requirements to ensure that adequate consultation had taken place. (Read the decision.)

Federal Court

Sambaa K'e Dene Band v Duncan

The Federal Court held that the Crown breached its duty to consult with two of three First Nations bands who had overlapping claims in the Northwest Territories. The federal minister of Indian affairs had postponed consultation with the two bands until an agreement in principle was reached between the Crown and the third band. The Federal Court held that the Crown had a duty to consult in good faith with all three bands given their overlapping land claims. (Read the decision.)

Ka'a'Gee Tu First Nation v Canada (Attorney General)

This case dealt with an application for judicial review of the Crown's decision to terminate a court-ordered consultation process with the Ka'a'Gee Tu First Nation in relation to an oil and gas development in the Northwest Territories. The application was dismissed, as the court held that First Nations are not entitled to use the re-opening of the consultation process by court order to renegotiate issues that go beyond the scope of the order. (Read the decision.)

Gitxaala Nation v Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities)

The Gitxaala First Nation applied for an order quashing a safety review of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, used by the Joint Review Panel in assessing environmental risk of the project. The First Nation took the position that the Crown had breached its duty to consult by excluding the First Nation from participating in preparing this report. The Federal Court refused to quash the safety review report and stated that the Joint Review Panel's process was sufficient to allow the First Nation to address any weaknesses in the report. In addition, it was premature for the court to interfere before the Joint Review Panel had considered the report and come to its conclusions regarding the approval of the project. (Read the decision.)

The authors wish to thank Erin Greenan and Tina Sun, articling students, for their help in preparing this legal update.

Norton Rose Group

Norton Rose Group is a leading international legal practice. We offer a full business law service to many of the world's pre-eminent financial institutions and corporations from offices in Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Central Asia.

Knowing how our clients' businesses work and understanding what drives their industries is fundamental to us. Our lawyers share industry knowledge and sector expertise across borders, enabling us to support our clients anywhere in the world. We are strong in financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and pharmaceuticals and life sciences.

We have more than 2900 lawyers operating from 43 offices in Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Amsterdam, Athens, Bahrain, Bangkok, Beijing, Bogotá, Brisbane, Brussels, Calgary, Canberra, Cape Town, Caracas, Casablanca, Dubai, Durban, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, London, Melbourne, Milan, Montréal, Moscow, Munich, Ottawa, Paris, Perth, Piraeus, Prague, Québec, Rome, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto and Warsaw; and from associate offices in Dar es Salaam, Ho Chi Minh City and Jakarta.

Norton Rose Group comprises Norton Rose LLP, Norton Rose Australia, Norton Rose Canada LLP, Norton Rose South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc), and their respective affiliates.

On January 1, 2012, Macleod Dixon joined Norton Rose Group adding strength and depth in Canada, Latin America and around the world. For more information please visit

Norton Rose will join forces with Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P on June 1, 2013, creating Norton Rose Fulbright a global legal practice with significant depth of expertise across the USA, Europe, Asia, Australia, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Central Asia.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
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