Canada: Clarifying The Role Of Regulatory Tribunals In Consultation – Canada's Highest Court Releases Two Key Aboriginal Consultation Decisions

On July 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its decisions in Hamlet of Clyde River, et al. v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. (PGS), et al. and Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc., et al. These appeals, which were heard on November 30, 2016 and previously discussed here, relate to the permissible scope of Crown reliance on regulatory processes and proponents to discharge the duty to consult and the role of the National Energy Board (NEB) and other regulatory tribunals in Aboriginal consultation and accommodation.

In both decisions, the SCC affirmed that the Crown can rely in whole or in part on regulatory processes to fulfill the duty to consult but that the Crown must take further measures to meet its duty to consult if the regulatory process being relied upon does not achieve adequate consultation or accommodation. The SCC also clarified that decisions of regulatory tribunals and agencies can constitute "Crown conduct" for the purposes of triggering the duty to consult if they are in effect acting on behalf of the Crown when making a final decision through delegated authority, even if they are not strictly speaking the "Crown" or an agent of the Crown at law.

While both cases relied upon NEB processes, the SCC reached very different conclusions regarding the adequacy of consultation for each decision based on the particular facts. In Clyde River, the Court found that the duty to consult had not been met and quashed the NEB approval at issue for a seismic testing program in Nunavut. In contrast, it concluded in Chippewas of the Thames that there had been adequate consultation for the proposed pipeline reversal and capacity expansion project and dismissed the appeal.

The following short summary of both decisions will be followed by a more detailed analysis of these decisions on our blog in the next several days.

Hamlet of Clyde River v. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA (TGS)

The first appeal, Clyde River, arises from an alleged failure to adequately consult before the NEB granted a Geophysical Operations Authorization to conduct a two-dimensional seismic survey program in Baffin Bay and the Davis Strait during the open water season for up to five years. The program had the potential to impact the Inuit of Clyde River's treaty rights to harvest marine mammals under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (1993).

The Hamlet of Clyde River (Kanngiqtugaapik) brought an application for judicial review of the NEB's decision before the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) on the basis, among other things, that the Crown had failed to fulfill its duty to consult with the Inuit of Clyde River and other Baffin Island communities. The Crown did not undertake any consultation outside the NEB process and the appellants argued that the NEB process was not a substitute for formal consultation and that the proponents' consultation efforts were inadequate, among other things. The FCA agreed with Clyde River that the Crown's duty to consult was at the deep end of the spectrum, but held that it had been discharged by the NEB's environmental assessment and regulatory process. Clyde River appealed the FCA's decision to the SCC.

The SCC overturned the decision of the FCA, quashing the NEB's Authorization. The SCC held that the NEB's decision-making process constituted Crown conduct that triggered the duty to consult. As the final decision-maker, the NEB was responsible for ensuring that consultation had been adequately fulfilled, before reaching its decision. In this case, consultation was inadequate and the decision must therefore be quashed.

In reaching its decision, the Court made the following notable findings:

  • The SCC provided some long-anticipated clarity since Rio Tinto on the questions of what constitutes the Crown and Crown action for the purposes of fulfilling the duty to consult in the context of regulatory tribunals. The Court held that the "Crown" for the purposes of the duty to consult refers to the exercise of executive power. Although the NEB is not strictly the "Crown" or an agent of the Crown, it does exercise executive power on behalf of the Crown pursuant to its statutory authority, and "is the vehicle through which the Crown acts". Therefore, the action of the NEB to make final decisions clearly constitutes Crown conduct. It does not matter whether the final decision maker on a resource project is Cabinet or the NEB. (paras. 28-29)
  • Given the flexible nature of the duty to consult, a process that was originally designed for a different purpose may be relied on by the Crown to carry out the duty, so long as it affords an appropriate level of consultation. The Court held that the NEB has a significant array of procedural and remedial powers as well as institutional expertise that permit extensive consultation and accommodation. Accordingly, the Crown may rely on the NEB to partially or completely fulfill the duty to consult, including to determine whether the duty to consult has been fulfilled. (paras. 31-37)
  • If the regulatory process being relied upon does not achieve adequate consultation or accommodation, the Crown must take further measures to meet its duty. This may involve filling any gaps on a case-by-case basis or through legislative or regulatory amendments, or through other measures such as making submissions to the regulatory body, requesting reconsideration of a decision, or seeking a postponement to allow for further consultation in a separate process before the decision is reached. (para. 22)
  • Where the NEB is the final decision maker, it must withhold project approval if the duty to consult remains unfulfilled. Any decision affecting Aboriginal or treaty rights made on the basis of inadequate consultation will not be in compliance with the duty to consult, and if challenged, should be quashed on judicial review. (para. 24)
  • In this case, deep consultation was required, considering the Inuit's established treaty rights to hunt and harvest marine mammals and the potentially high risk of the seismic testing affecting such rights. (para. 43) Consultation fell short in the following ways:
    • The focus of the NEB's assessment was on adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures, rather than on the specific effects of the activities on the appellants' traditional resource use.
    • It was not made clear to the Inuit that the Crown was relying on the NEB's process for fulfilling the duty to consult. The Crown should make it clear to affected Indigenous groups if it is relying on the processes of a regulatory body to fulfill its duty, whether in whole or in part, including providing guidance on the form of the consultation process to allow for their participation and to raise concerns.
    • Lastly, the Inuit had insufficient opportunities to participate in the consultation process, which lacked oral hearings and did not provide participant funding. (paras. 23, 45-47)

Chippewas of the Thames v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

The second appeal, Chippewas of the Thames, stems from the NEB's approval of an application to reverse the flow and increase the capacity of part of an existing pipeline in Ontario pursuant to s. s. 58 of the National Energy Board Act. The NEB granted the approval after concluding that any impact on the Appellants' asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty rights would be minimal and mitigated, and that the approval of the Project was in the public interest. The NEB also indicated that it was satisfied with the level of Aboriginal engagement that the proponent conducted for the project.

The Chippewas of the Thames First Nation (the COTFN) brought an application for judicial review before the FCA, arguing that these it had not been consulted by the Crown (the NEB was the final decision-maker) and that the NEB erred by, among other things, failing to specifically determine whether the Crown had fulfilled the duty to consult. The majority of the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the NEB was not required to discharge the duty to consult for the Crown and was not required to determine whether the Crown fulfilled the duty to consult prior to rendering a decision.

Unlike Clyde River, the approval at issue was dealing with a change to an existing project with virtually all of the required construction taking place on previously disturbed lands owed by the proponent or on the proponent's existing right-of-way. The rights at issue were also asserted Aboriginal rights versus established treaty rights.

In dismissing the appeal, the SCC disagreed with the majority of the Federal Court of Appeal and found that the duty to consult had been triggered by the NEB decision even though there was no separate Crown decision or Crown involvement in the process. Similar to Clyde River, the SCC concluded that "the Crown's constitutional obligation does not disappear when the Crown acts to approve a project through a regulatory body such as the NEB" (para. 36). However, the SCC went on to determine that the Aboriginal consultation and accommodation undertaken for this project through the NEB process was sufficient to meet the duty to consult. In dismissing the appeal, the SCC made a number of notable findings some of which reaffirmed existing law including:

  • In the context of existing projects, the subject of consultation is the impact of the current decision at issue on asserted or established rights. The duty to consult is not triggered by historical impacts and is not the vehicle to address historical grievances but the historical context and cumulative effects of an ongoing project may inform the scope of the duty to consult. (paras. 41-42)
  • Given its expertise in supervising and approving federally regulated pipeline projects, the NEB is "particularly well-positioned to assess the risks posed by such projects to Indigenous groups" and its existing statutory powers which afford it broad jurisdiction to impose conditions and oversee compliance were capable of satisfying the duty to consult in this particular case. (para. 48)
  • The process undertaken by the NEB was sufficient because the COTFN were provided an adequate opportunity to participate in the decision-making process (including as an intervener in oral hearing with capacity funding and an opportunity to tender evidence, pose information requests to the proponent, and make closing oral submissions), the NEB sufficiently assessed the potential impacts on the rights of Indigenous groups, and provided appropriate accommodation through the imposition of conditions on the proponent (paras. 51-57)
  • The NEB's reasons on the Aboriginal consultation undertaken in this case were sufficient, which unlike Clyde River were not subsumed within the environmental assessment and specific to impacts on asserted and established rights. The NEB was not required in this case to engage "in a formulaic Haida analysis" in its reasons regarding the depth of consultation required. Instead, the NEB was required to show in its reasons that it "took the asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights into consideration and accommodated them where appropriate," which it did. (para. 63-64)
  • A decision to approve a project "cannot be in the public interest if the Crown's duty to consult has not been met" but "this does not mean that the interests of Indigenous groups cannot be balanced with other interests at the accommodation stage. Indeed, it is for this reason that the duty to consult does not provide Indigenous groups with a 'veto' over final Crown decisions." (para. 59)

As noted above, stay tuned to our ERA blog for a more detailed analysis of these decisions and their implications which will be posted in the next several days.

To view the original article 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
 
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