Canada: Ontario Court Affirms Crown’s Delegation Of Consultation To Proponent Under "Mining Act"

INTRODUCTION

On August 28, 2014, in Wabauskang First Nation v. Minister of Northern Development and Mines1 (Wabauskang), the Ontario Divisional Court (Court) dismissed a judicial review application brought by Wabauskang First Nation (WFN) against the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (Ministry) and Rubicon Minerals Corporation (Rubicon).2 WFN had challenged a decision (Decision) of the Ministry's Director of Mine Rehabilitation (Director) to acknowledge (and thus approve) Rubicon's Production Closure Plan (Closure Plan) for its Phoenix Gold Project located in northwestern Ontario (Project).

This decision provides an illuminating discussion and clarification of several principles of the Crown's duty to consult originally set out in the 2004 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Haida Nation.3 In particular, it addresses the appropriate scope and substance of consultation in the context of Treaty 3 in Ontario and confirms the authority of the Crown to delegate procedural aspects of consultation to proponents. In this decision, the Court also accepts as reasonable the institutional procedures put in place by Ontario under the Mining Act4 to assess Aboriginal claims, potential impacts on such claims and the adequacy of consultation.

BACKGROUND

The Project is a proposed gold mine located on privately held land on an isolated peninsula within Treaty 3 lands, including the traditional territory of WFN. Much of the Project land is a brownfield site and has been under various stages of exploration and industrial activity since the 1950s. In 2002 Rubicon acquired an option on the Project site, which was already in advanced stages of mineral exploration.

In order for a proponent to proceed with advanced exploration or to commence mine production in Ontario, the Director must acknowledge receipt of a closure plan made in accordance with the Mining Act and its Regulation. Following consultations with WFN in 2009 and 2010 and negotiations for a benefits agreement, Rubicon filed an initial production closure plan with the Ministry in February 2011. Rubicon voluntarily withdrew its initial plan to allow for additional consultation with WFN and delayed refiling of the plan several times to allow time for a consultant for WFN to review the plan. In October 2011, Rubicon submitted to the Ministry the revised Closure Plan, which addressed the concerns raised by the WFN consultant and included all recommended mitigation measures.

WFN raised concerns with the filing of the revised Closure Plan and in particular questioned Ontario's jurisdiction to accept the Closure Plan on the basis of the trial court's decision in Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources,5 which was released in August 2011. In Keewatin, the trial judge held that on the basis of Treaty 3, absent prior authorization of the federal government, Ontario could not take up or authorize taking up of Treaty 3 lands if it would significantly interfere with Treaty 3 harvesting rights.

Despite WFN's concerns, the Director issued the Decision in December 2011. Relying upon the Director's acknowledgement of the Closure Plan, Rubicon proceeded with development of the Project. In December 2012, WFN applied for judicial review of the Decision, seeking for it to be quashed or suspended until the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate was met. WFN was granted further time to perfect its application pending the outcome of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) in Keewatin, which was released in March 2013.6

ISSUES

The Court considered two key issues raised by WFN. The first issue was whether Ontario had exclusive regulatory jurisdiction to make the Decision, or whether it would constitute an infringement of treaty rights, based on the terms of Treaty 3. On the basis of the trial decision in Keewatin, WFN argued that Ontario did not have authority to accept the Closure Plan without first determining whether it infringed WFN's Treaty 3 rights. If it did, WFN argued that Ontario would not have jurisdiction to make the Decision.

The Court held that this issue had been determined by the ONCA in Keewatin, which overturned the trial judge's decision and confirmed Ontario's decision-making authority on the basis of its provincial constitutional authority. The ONCA's decision in Keewatin was recently upheld by the SCC in Grassy Narrows.7 Please see our previous commentaries on the ONCA's decision in Keewatin and the SCC's decision in Grassy Narrows for further details about Ontario's jurisdiction in this regard.

The second issue raised by WFN was whether the Crown had breached its duty to consult and accommodate WFN. WFN alleged that the Crown had breached its duty in three ways:

  1. by failing to assess the nature of WFN's claims;
  2. by failing to share its initial assessment of WFN's claims with WFN; and
  3. through improper delegation of its duty to consult and accommodate to Rubicon.

The Court's conclusions with respect to each of these issues are discussed below, the primary issue being item (c): whether the Crown had improperly delegated too much of its duty to consult to Rubicon.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

(a) Ontario's assessment of WFN's claims

It has been well established by the courts since Haida Nation that in order to meaningfully fulfill its duty to consult, the Crown must first assess the appropriate level of consultation required in respect of a potentially affected Aboriginal group. In order to do so, the Crown must make a preliminary assessment of the strength of an Aboriginal group's rights and interests and the potential impacts of its decision on such rights or interests.

In this case, the Court concluded on the evidence that Ontario had established a reasonable institutional process in which to assess the potential or actual impacts on WFN's claims, and it held that Ontario's assessment of WFN's claims and the potential impacts on such claims at the mine production stage was reasonable. Ontario had reasonably identified WFN's Treaty 3 rights (namely, harvesting and fishing rights) and considered all potential impacts upon such rights.8

(b) Sharing of Ontario's assessment of claims with WFN

WFN submitted that the Crown had breached its duty to consult by failing to share the results of its assessment of WFN's claims with WFN. The Court noted that the purpose of such an assessment is for Ontario to determine the appropriate level of consultation, and WFN had not provided any authority to support the argument that Ontario must share its assessment with WFN as part of the consultation process. The Court observed, however, that in Grassy Narrows, the SCC did make a comment to the effect that the Crown must communicate to the First Nation its findings regarding the impact of the project on the First Nation's rights. Despite this comment, the Court concluded that it ought not to review the reasonableness of Ontario's assessment made in 2011 on the basis of the SCC's comment in a 2014 decision.9

Although it was not applicable to this case, the SCC's comments in Grassy Narrows leave open the question of whether they suggest a potential expansion of the Crown's duties in the early stages of consultation. This could give rise to arguments in future cases based on an interpretation of Grassy Narrows with respect to an obligation of the Crown to share its preliminary strength of claim assessment with First Nations.

(c) Delegation of duty to consult and accommodate

WFN's key argument concerned the allegation that the Crown improperly delegated the duty to consult to Rubicon. Notably, WFN acknowledged that its concern was not with respect to the adequacy of consultation, and WFN did not provide any submissions regarding how Ontario had specifically failed to fulfill its duty to consult and accommodate the Treaty 3 rights of WFN to hunt and fish. Rather, WFN argued that Ontario had improperly delegated more than simply the procedural aspects of consultation to Rubicon and had relied too heavily on Rubicon to fulfill the Crown's duty to consult.

In dismissing WFN's arguments and upholding the Decision, the Court made the following observations:

(i) The Crown's duty to consult did not give rise to a requirement to consult in respect of shared decision making or revenue sharing.

WFN argued that it had a right to be consulted by Ontario with respect to project-related benefits and revenue sharing, as well as the possibility of shared decision making with respect to the Project. WFN argued that Ontario failed to consult in respect of these issues and had failed to negotiate resource sharing with WFN.10

The Court did not accept that Ontario had such a duty to consult and accommodate with respect to shared decision making or revenue sharing. The Court held that Treaty 3 makes no express or implied reference to shared decision making or revenue sharing. Further, WFN had understood and agreed that these issues were to be negotiated between Rubicon and WFN, which (while not required at law) had occurred.11

The Court further observed that, contrary to what was stated in WFN's Consultation and Accommodation Protocol regarding its expectation for shared decision making, as noted in Haida Nation, the duty to consult and accommodate does not require the Crown to have the consent of the First Nation before a project is approved, nor does it provide the First Nation with a veto over the project or the Crown's decision making.12

(ii) The Crown met its duty to consult with respect to impacts on WFN's harvesting and fishing rights.

The Court held that Ontario reasonably fulfilled its duty to consult and accommodate WFN in respect of its Treaty 3 harvesting and fishing rights, within the meaning of Haida Nation. The Court observed that the Ministry had been actively involved in ensuring that consultations occurred between Rubicon and WFN and affording every reasonable opportunity for consultation between Ontario and WFN. The Court noted that the Director had reviewed the adequacy of Rubicon's consultation, made appropriate recommendations to Rubicon with respect to consultation and was regularly in communication with representatives of both WFN and Rubicon with respect to the consultation process. Furthermore, the Court noted that Ontario had repeatedly offered to consult directly with WFN, but it was at WFN's insistence that WFN negotiated with Rubicon directly in accordance with WFN's own consultation and accommodation protocol.13

(iii) Ontario properly delegated only procedural aspects of the duty to consult and accommodate to Rubicon.

The Court held that Ontario appropriately delegated procedural aspects of consultation to Rubicon while still acknowledging that it had the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the duty to consult was fulfilled. This was evidenced in various ways, including through its recommendations to Rubicon to delay filing of the Closure Plan to provide further time for WFN to articulate its concerns and through its assessment of Rubicon's responses to WFN's consultant's report.14

The Court further held that Ontario had appropriately analyzed the need for accommodation within the context of a brownfield site and met its duty to accommodate by ensuring that Rubicon undertook in a meaningful way to mitigate WFN's concerns. The Court found it acceptable that Rubicon had responded to many of the concerns raised by WFN's consultant on a "best efforts" or "reasonable efforts" basis, and that such responses were not excessively vague. This approach was acceptable as many of the questions and concerns related to issues of the mine closure, which would only occur many years in the future. The Court found it reasonable for Ontario to accept Rubicon's ongoing commitments to monitor WFN's concerns and take appropriate accommodation and mitigation steps as appropriate.15

(iv) If warranted, any legal remedies would have been solely against the Crown.

Finally, the Court observed that even if it had found any improper delegation of the duty to consult, or even a failure to fulfill the duty to consult, the remedy would have been solely against Ontario, not Rubicon.16 Although the Court did not elaborate on this point, this finding is consistent with the principle that the legal responsibility of the duty to consult ultimately rests with the Crown rather than with third parties. Furthermore, the Court's earlier observations in the decision suggest an acknowledgement of the considerable efforts at consultation and accommodation made by Rubicon.

In its review of the facts, the Court observed that WFN had filed its judicial review application more than a year after the Decision was issued. The Court also referred to the substantial expenditures and work undertaken by Rubicon in reliance on the Closure Plan. The Court noted that there would be drastic implications for Rubicon and its workers if work on the Project were stopped, even temporarily.17 In our view, this observation reflects a number of common themes that the SCC and lower courts have raised in relation to the duty to consult, including the importance of timeliness in decision making and the procedural fairness owed to proponents to receive a decision within a reasonable period of time, and the need to balance the rights and interest of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples.18

Footnotes

1. 2014 ONSC 4424 (Wabauskang).

2. Partner Geoff R. Hall of McCarthy Tétrault LLP acted as co-counsel for Rubicon in this litigation, with Thomas Isaac of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.

3. Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73 (Haida Nation).

4. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.14.

5. 2011 ONSC 4801.

6. Keewatin v. Ontario (Natural Resources), 2013 ONCA 158.

7. Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario (Natural Resources), 2014 SCC 48 (Grassy Narrows).

8. Wabauskang at paras. 200–204.

9. Wabauskang at paras. 205–207.

10. Wabauskang at paras. 212, 216.

11. Wabauskang at para. 217.

12. Wabauskang at para. 235.

13.Wabauskang at paras. 218–234.

14. Wabauskang at para. 229.

15. Wabauskang at para. 234.

16. Wabauskang at para. 243.

17. Wabauskang at paras. 175–177.

18. See, for example, the SCC's comments in Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53, at paras. 10, 35, 79 and 80.

To view original article, please click here.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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