Canada: Alberta Utilities Commission Confirms It Has No Jurisdiction To Assess Crown Consultation

On October 7, 2016, the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission) confirmed it has no jurisdiction to consider or assess the adequacy of Crown consultation with Aboriginal groups that may be affected by a project under review. The ruling was issued as part of the AUC's process to consider the Fort McMurray West 500-kV Transmission Project (AUC Proceeding 21030) and marks the first occasion that the Commission has explicitly considered and ruled on this jurisdictional issue. Subject to any appeals, this ruling will help guide the scope of future facilities proceedings before the AUC.

Background

Over the last several years, the issue of whether a tribunal has the jurisdiction to review and consider Crown consultation with Aboriginal groups has arisen in several contexts in Alberta. Much of the debate has followed the 2010 Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Rio Tinto Alcan Inc v Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43 (Carrier Sekani), which found that the B.C. Utilities Commission had the jurisdiction to consider whether the Crown had satisfied its constitutional duties to consult with Aboriginal people in relation to an application by the Crown to obtain approval of an Energy Purchase Agreement.

In 2012, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) – which, at the time, had similar statutory powers to the AUC – considered whether it had jurisdiction to determine the adequacy of Crown consultation in relation to the Osum Oil Sands Corp. Taiga Project. The party responsible for raising the constitutional question, Cold Lake First Nation (CLFN), argued that, for the ERCB to decide matters in the public interest, it must necessarily assess whether Crown obligations were fulfilled.

The ERCB ultimately concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to assess the adequacy of Crown consultation. It found that, although it had the power to decide constitutional questions, such questions must relate to the Board's statutory mandate. The ERCB found nothing in its mandate to extend its authority to review Crown consultation with respect to Aboriginal or treaty rights in circumstances where the Crown is not the applicant. In support of its decision, the ERCB referenced Dene Tha' First Nations v Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2005 ABCA 68 (para 28) and distinguished Carrier Sekani on the basis that the applicant was a private entity.

CLFN subsequently reached an agreement with the proponent and withdrew its objection to the project under review by the ERCB. CLFN appealed the ERCB's jurisdictional decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal, but Justice Berger denied leave on the basis of mootness (2012 ABCA 304).

Similar issues were raised in the context of the Joint Review Panel that considered the Jackpine Mine Expansion Project. The decisions in that case were influenced in part by the terms of the Joint Review Panel Agreement (see 2012 ABCA 352). As of June 2013, the ERCB became the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) under the Responsible Energy Development Act. This statute addressed the issue for energy resource projects by explicitly stating that the AER does not have the authority to consider the adequacy of Crown consultation (section 21). However, that Act does not apply to the AUC.

More recently, the Commission had occasion to determine whether it has jurisdiction to assess the adequacy of Crown consultation in an application by EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. (EDTI) to expand a substation. The Samson Cree First Nation provided a Notice of Question of Constitutional Law (NQCL) with respect to the adequacy of Crown consultation and on March 3, 2016, the Commission dismissed the NQCL. On May 13, 2016, the Commission provided its reasons.

With respect to the NQCL, the Commission held that the only consultation required in the circumstances was the consultation conducted by EDTI in accordance with the Commission's requirements. The Commission found that the NQCL could be dismissed because Samson Cree First Nation, despite having concerns regarding the adequacy of consultation prior to the hearing, failed to give notice as required by the Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act and Schedule 2 of the Designation of Constitutional Decision Makers Regulation (the Regulation), which resulted in undue prejudice to the Crown, the applicant and the integrity of the Commission's hearing process. The Commission did not, however, explicitly deal with the question of whether the AUC had the jurisdiction to consider the questions posed in the NQCL.

The October 7, 2016 decision

The NQCLs in the present case were brought before the Commission by several First Nations and Métis groups (collectively, the Aboriginal Groups). The NQCLs posed the following questions: 

  1. Has the Crown, through the regulatory process or otherwise, discharged its duty to consult and accommodate SCFN and BLCN with respect to adverse impacts arising from the Project on the rights guaranteed to SCFN and BLCN pursuant to Treaty, the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, 1930 ("NRTA") and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982
  2. Can the Alberta Utilities Commission ("AUC") find the project is in the public interest, pursuant to subsection 17(1) of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, in the absence of adequate consultation with respect to adverse impacts arising from the Project on the rights guaranteed to SCFN and BLCN pursuant to Treaty, the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, 1930, and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982?

The Commission held that the Aboriginal Groups provided sufficient information and notice pursuant to the Regulation. As such, the Commission was able to rule on the jurisdictional issue.

After reviewing its enabling legislation, the Commission held that it has no explicit or implicit duty to assess the adequacy of Crown consultation before making determinations on applications before it where the Crown is not a participant or an applicant before the Commission and where no Crown decision is before the Commission. The Commission held that it is only empowered to determine questions of constitutional law "that are properly before it," adopting the language used in Carrier Sekani.

The Commission upheld the 'Crown applicant' distinction with reference to the Federal Court of Appeal decisions in Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc., 2015 FCA 222 (Chippewas) and Standing Buffalo Dakota First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc., 2009 FCA 308 (Standing Buffalo). It was significant that the Federal Court of Appeal in Chippewas distinguished Carrier Sekani from Standing Buffalo on the basis that the Crown was not a participant in the hearing process at issue in Standing Buffalo.

Finally, the Commission held that assessing Crown consultation would be premature as Crown consultation processes were not exhausted by the hearing process, rather the hearing process was but one component of a broader consultation process. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission declined jurisdiction over assessing the adequacy of Crown consultation in the context of the transmission facility applications.

Conclusion and implications

The AUC's October 7, 2016 ruling clearly articulates the AUC's view that it does not have the jurisdiction to consider the adequacy of Crown consultation where the applicant is a private entity. For the AUC, issues regarding Crown consultation and impacts on Aboriginal groups are most likely to arise in the context of facilities applications, such as transmission lines and power (including wind, hydro and gas) plants. The ruling provides some assurance to proponents of these projects that, going forward, the Commission will no longer need to postpone regulatory proceedings to consider this question. It also confirms that the AUC's focus will continue to be on the proponent's consultation with stakeholders, including Aboriginal groups, pursuant to AUC requirements and guidelines. This may help to limit the scope of matters addressed within AUC proceedings where Aboriginal groups are intervening.

As a caution, we note that the AUC's ruling does not have binding precedential value on future AUC decisions. However, given the history on this issue and the widely recognized value in maintaining a consistent approach across applications, future AUC decision-makers are likely to follow this approach. Given the recent timing of this decision, it is not yet known whether the Aboriginal Groups involved will seek to appeal the AUC's ruling to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

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
 
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