Canada: Heavy Lies The Head That Wears The Crown: SCC Delivers Clyde River And Chippewas Judgments

On July 26, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada released its unanimous decisions in Clyde River (Hamlet) v Petroleum Geo-Services Inc.1 and Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc.2 The Court clarifies that while the duty to consult rests with the Crown, the decisions of administrative tribunals can constitute "Crown conduct" that triggers the duty to consult.

For a review of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decisions in each of these cases, please click here. At issue in both of these cases are the obligations of the National Energy Board (NEB) in assessing and discharging the duty to consult when the Crown is not a party to the proceedings.

Overview of Cases

Clyde River (Hamlet) v Petroleum Geo-Services Inc.

In May 2011, TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA, Petroleum Geoservices Inc. and Multi Klient Invest (together, the Proponent) applied to the NEB for authorization to conduct offshore seismic testing associated with oil exploration off the east coast of Baffin Island (the Project). The Hamlet of Clyde River and the Nammautaq Hunters and Trappers Organization (HTO) – Clyde River (Clyde River Inuit) raised concerns about the Project's impact on marine life and Inuit harvesting. HTOs are mandated by the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement to regulate the rights of their members relating to wildlife harvesting. Clyde River Inuit depend on marine mammals including bowhead whales, narwhals, seals and polar bears for food security as well as economic, cultural, and spiritual well-being.

The NEB held meetings in communities in the area affected by the Project. Clyde River Inuit attended the meetings and asked several "basic" questions about the Project process that the Proponent was unable to answer. The NEB suspended the review process and waited until the Proponent filed a 3,926 page document in response to the questions. The document was mostly in English (not Inuktitut) and due to the limited internet bandwidth available to northern communities was functionally unavailable to the communities.3 No oral hearing took place and no funding was provided to Clyde River Inuit to review the documents, or participate in the NEB process.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the FCA decision and quashed the NEB approval. The Court found that although "the NEB is not, strictly speaking, 'the Crown'... as a statutory body holding responsibility under s. 5(1)(b) of COGOA... the NEB acts on behalf of the Crown when making a final decision on a project application". Since the NEB is the "vehicle through which the Crown acts", the approval process triggers the Crown's duty to consult.4

The Court found that when assessing harms arising from the project the NEB inappropriately focused on harm to the environment (which the NEB assessed as low) instead of assessing the harm to the Clyde River Inuit's section 35 constitutional rights. The NEB's proposed mitigation measures were not sufficient to address significant concerns about the impact of the Project on Inuit rights, particularly the right to harvest marine mammals.

The Court found that the circumstances of the case required deep consultation, as Clyde River Inuit's rights to harvest marine mammals are established under a modern land claim and the potential for harm to those rights is high. The Court found that although the Crown is entitled to rely on administrative processes, that Clyde River Inuit should have been given notice at the outset of the government's intention to rely on the NEB process to fulfill the duty to consult. And, despite the NEB's broad powers under COGOA to allow for significant opportunities for the Clyde River Inuit to participate in the hearing process, they were not accorded those opportunities (including the failure to hold oral hearings) that would have allowed for meaningful consultation in this context.5 In addition, the information provided by the proponent was found to be inaccessible due to lack of translation into Inuktitut and, in any case, simply providing a 3,926 page document was insufficient on its own to meet the standard of deep consultation.

...only a fraction of this enormous document was translated into Inuktitut. To put it mildly, furnishing answers to questions that went to the heart of the treaty rights at stake in the form of a practically inaccessible document dump months after the questions were initially asked in person is not true consultation...

...Had the appellants had the resources to submit their own scientific evidence, and the opportunity to test the evidence of the proponents, the result of the environmental assessment could have been very different.6

In the end, the Court criticized the NEB's failure in its reasons to address the source of Clyde River Inuit's rights, the required scope of deep consultation, and Clyde River Inuit's concerns about the inadequate consultation process.

Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

In 2012, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) applied for approval under the National Energy Board Act to reverse the flow of Line 9, a pipeline used to transport oil, and to increase Line 9's capacity to transport heavy oil (Pipeline Project). Line 9 traverses the traditional territory of the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation and crosses the Thames River where the Chippewas assert Aboriginal and Treaty rights and carry out activities central to their identity and way of life.

The Chippewas participated in the NEB hearings as an intervenor. The NEB acknowledged the potential impacts of Line 9 on Aboriginal rights. However, based on Enbridge's representations, the NEB was satisfied that any impacts would be minimal and appropriately mitigated.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the FCA decision and upheld the NEB approval. As with the Clyde River decision, the Court found that the NEB's approval constituted Crown action that triggered the Crown's duty to consult.

However, unlike the Clyde River case, the Court held that the NEB process had provided procedural protections that included early notice from the NEB to the Chippewas, oral hearings, submissions, final argument and participant funding. The Court found that the Pipeline Project would take place largely on lands that were already being used for the pipeline, and so the impacts to the Chippewas would not be extensive. Further, the NEB imposed conditions on the Pipeline Project that the Court judged were appropriate mitigation for the concerns raised by the Chippewas during the hearing process.

Impacts on the NEB & Other Tribunals/Boards

"Crown conduct" that can trigger the duty to consult goes beyond the direct exercise of executive power or actions of an agent of the Crown. The Supreme Court in Chippewas and Clyde River extends the definition of "Crown conduct" to include power to exercise decision-making that has been statutorily delegated to an independent tribunal:

...Put plainly, once it is accepted that a regulatory agency exists to exercise executive power as authorized by legislatures, any distinction between its actions and Crown action quickly falls away. ... It therefore does not matter whether the final decision maker on a resource project is Cabinet or the NEB. In either case, the decision constitutes Crown action that may trigger the duty to consult. As Rennie J.A. said in dissent at the Federal Court of Appeal in Chippewas of the Thames, "[t]he duty, like the honour of the Crown, does not evaporate simply because a final decision has been made by a tribunal established by Parliament, as opposed to Cabinet" (para. 105)....7

The judgments provide greater clarity about the roles and responsibilities of regulatory tribunals and agencies in relation to Crown consultation. The Supreme Court in both judgments maps out a process for Crown reliance on tribunals to fulfill its obligations, including early notice of the Crown's intent to rely on the administrative process, and clear communications about the form of the consultation process.8 The Crown can rely on the administrative process to the extent that the administrative body has the statutory authority to "do what the duty to consult requires in the particular circumstances".9 In considering the public interest, affected tribunals will need to satisfy themselves that project authorisations do not breach constitutionally protected rights of Indigenous peoples. Where the administrative process falls short, additional consultation from the Crown will be required.

The Court also places responsibility on the administrative tribunal to delay issuing an approval until it assesses that the duty to consult has been discharged. If tribunals issue approvals before the duty has been discharged, then the courts may quash that tribunal's decision. Accordingly the Court finds, "where the Crown's duty to consult... remains unfulfilled, the NEB must withhold project approval".10

It is important to note, however, that the requirements for Crown consultation set out in Clyde River for the NEB could also be construed as procedural fairness requirements that are not unique to Crown consultation per se. Further, it should be remembered that the implications underlying these decisions need to be analysed in the distinct legislative context of the many administrative bodies across Canada.

With respect to the NEB, it bears noting that the federal government is in the midst of considering ways to "modernize" the tribunal. An expert panel issued a report on May 15, 2017 addressing this very issue. The government followed up by releasing a Discussion Paper on June 29, 2017 seeking views of the public on various regulatory reforms, including those relating to the NEB. In light of these Supreme Court decisions, it will be interesting to see how the government ultimately addresses Indigenous consultation processes conducted by the NEB going forward.

In Ontario, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) has powers to make decisions independently of the Crown. The OEB will need to assess the extent to which the OEB may be required to assess and discharge the provincial Crown's Indigenous consultation duties, when making final decisions about resource projects.

In the north, co-management boards have independent decision-making responsibilities within the framework of land claims. Each of these bodies will need to carefully analyze the decisions to assess the implications for them going forward. At a minimum, they will require resources and training to respond to this new judicial understanding of their responsibilities regarding Indigenous consultation.

With respect to review processes that are currently underway, it may be prudent for government(s) and the relevant administrative tribunals to consider how each will meet their respective duties to engage in the Crown's duty to consult. Independent of these Crown obligations, project proponents will still need to ensure early engagement with Indigenous groups in advance of submitting an application for an approval.

Finally, if the issue of Crown consultation is squarely raised before an administrative tribunal, the tribunal will need to ensure that the matter of consultation is addressed in its reasons. While a full Haida analysis will not always be necessary, demonstrating how concerns have been heard and addressed is a requirement, particularly in cases of deep consultation.11

While the Supreme Court of Canada has offered a good measure of clarification on the Crown's duty to consult, it is obvious that more needs to be done by governments, tribunals and boards to clearly spell out their respective duties for meeting Indigenous or Aboriginal consultation requirements.

Footnotes

1. 2017 SCC 40. [Clyde River]

2. 2017 SCC 41. [Chippewas]

3. Clyde River at 11.

4. Clyde River at 29.

5. Clyde River at 47.

6. Clyde River at 49 and 52.

7. Clyde River at 29.

8. Clyde River at 23.

9. Chippewas at 32.

10. Clyde River at 39.

11. Clyde River at 42.

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
Julie Abouchar
Charles Birchall
 
In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.