Canada: The Duty To Consult And Accommodate: Supreme Court Of Canada Rules On The Role Of Regulatory Processes

The Supreme Court of Canada has released two highly anticipated decisions on the role of regulatory bodies in fulfilling the Crown's duty to consult with Indigenous groups and to accommodate their interests. Following brief summaries, we discuss a few significant takeaways from the decisions.

Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc, 2017 SCC 40

In this case, the Inuit of Clyde River sought judicial review of an authorization by the National Energy Board (the "NEB") of an offshore seismic oil and gas exploration project. It was not disputed that the testing could negatively affect their treaty rights, and the Inuit alleged that the Crown had failed to meet its duty to consult in approving the project.

The Court unanimously concluded that the Crown had breached its duty to consult in respect of the proposed testing, and quashed the NEB's authorization. In doing so, the Court found that the NEB process itself constituted Crown action that triggered the duty to consult, and that the NEB, as a tribunal empowered to decide questions of law, can consider whether the duty to consult has been met and may only proceed to approve a project if Crown consultation is adequate.

While the Crown may rely on steps taken by a regulatory agency to fulfill the duty, the Crown has the ultimate responsibility for fulfilling the duty to consult. In this case, the Court found that the NEB's process fell short of the deep consultation required in the circumstances: the Crown's reliance on the NEB's process was not made clear to the Inuit; the process failed to adequately consider the impact of the proposed testing on the affected treaty rights; and opportunities for participation and consultation were limited by a lack of participant funding and an absence of oral hearings.

Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc, 2017 SCC 41

Here, the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation (the "Chippewas") sought judicial review of an approval by the NEB of a modification of the Line 9 pipeline owned by Enbridge Pipelines Inc. ("Enbridge"). The proposed modification would reverse the flow of part of the pipeline, increase its capacity and enable it to carry heavy crude, thereby increasing the assessed risk of spills along the pipeline, which crossed the Chippewas' traditional territory.

The Court unanimously concluded that the Crown's duty to consult was met by the process undertaken by the NEB in approving Enbridge's application. In contrast to Clyde River, in this case the NEB had held an oral hearing, provided early notice of the hearing process to affected Indigenous groups and sought their formal participation, provided the Chippewas with participant funding which allowed them to prepare and tender evidence, and provided adequate written reasons. Additionally, the Chippewas were able to pose formal information requests to Enbridge, to which they received written responses, and to make closing oral submissions to the NEB.

The Court affirmed that where the Crown's duty to consult has been triggered, a decision maker may only proceed to approve a project if Crown consultation is adequate. Although agreeing with the Federal Court of Appeal (the "FCA") in the result, the Court overruled the FCA's holding that the NEB was not required to consider whether the Crown's duty to consult had been discharged before approving a pipeline application when the Crown did not formally participate in the NEB's hearing process—stating 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.

The Court also commented that the Crown should provide adequate notice to affected Indigenous groups that it will be relying on consultation performed by a regulatory agency, however, the Court considered the Chippewas to have adequately gleaned such information from surrounding circumstances, despite explicit notice from the Crown coming only after the hearing process had concluded.


These two decisions provided important guidance on the duty to consult. While the Supreme Court affirmed a number of established principles, the following are a few significant highlights:

Direct Crown Consultation is Not Required

It is settled law that the Crown may rely on consultative steps taken by an administrative body to satisfy its duty to consult, but Chippewas now makes clear that an administrative body can satisfy the duty in whole and a final decision can be made with no direct consultation by the Crown.

Whether a particular administrative body is able to completely satisfy the duty to consult will depend on the powers it has been given, but the Supreme Court has clearly signalled that it is willing to uphold the delegation of the performance of this constitutional duty to administrative bodies that it finds competent.

While this may signal an erosion of the constitutional protection and the opportunity to foster reconciliation that the duty to consult is meant to provide, the Supreme Court did maintain that the Crown holds the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the duty is met. If the consultation by the regulatory body is not sufficient, the Crown will be required to go further. However, this may be cold comfort to Indigenous groups hoping that these concerns would be heard by persons with the power to initiate the broader governmental actions or changes that reconciliation may require, as opposed to a regulatory body with potentially limited ability to carry out reconciliation through conditions to approval.

Role of Administrative Bodies in Consultation

As one may expect, there are certain constitutional requirements that apply to a regulatory body that is able to make final decisions impacting Aboriginal and treaty rights without any direct consultation by the Crown. With these two decisions, the Supreme Court also clarified that:

  • a contemplated administrative decision can itself be Crown conduct triggering the duty to consult;
  • decision-makers empowered to decide questions of law can consider whether the duty to consult has been met, and indeed must do so where the issue of adequacy of consultation is raised; and
  • a decision-maker may only approve a project if Crown consultation is adequate.

With these requirements, the Supreme Court addressed the concerning decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Chippewas. In that decision, the majority had held that the NEB was not required to consider whether the duty to consult had been discharged before approving a pipeline application when the Crown did not formally participate in the NEB hearing process. In effect, the Crown could delegate decision-making power to a tribunal, but the duty to consult would not follow unless the Crown itself got involved.

Instead, the Supreme Court sided with the dissenting judge at the FCA and made clear that the Crown's constitutional obligation does not disappear when the Crown acts to approve a project through a regulatory body like the NEB. Whether the Crown is there or not, a regulatory body must ensure that its decisions that may themselves be considered Crown conduct are consistent with the duty to consult.

That said, while these are important safeguards, the onus is still on the affected Indigenous groups to raise these issues of adequacy of consultation, which may ultimately become a routine practice.

Factors Indicating Adequate Consultation

In both cases, the Supreme Court identified a number of factors that indicate the adequacy of the consultation process. As an example of adequate consultation, in Chippewas, the NEB had:

  • provided an oral hearing
  • provided early notice of the hearing process
  • formally sought the participation of affected Indigenous groups
  • provided participant funding to prepare and tender evidence
  • enabled formal information requests to Enbridge, to which written responses were received
  • accepted closing oral submissions from affected Indigenous groups
  • provided reasons for its decision that expressly weighed impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights
  • provided written and binding conditions of accommodation

The process at issue in Clyde River lacked a number of the above factors, but one of the major failings highlighted by the Supreme Court was that the consultation process and the reasons were too focused on whether the testing was likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. No consideration was given in the environmental assessment to the source of the treaty rights to harvest marine mammals, nor the impact of the proposed testing on those rights.

While the degree of consideration required in each case will vary, these decisions indicate that regulatory agencies are required to show how asserted Aboriginal and treaty rights have been taken into consideration and accommodated where appropriate, and that this can no longer simply be subsumed within an environmental assessment.

The Crown Must Make Clear its Reliance on Consultation Performed by a Regulatory Body

In both cases, the Supreme Court explained that where the Crown intends to rely on the processes of a regulatory body to fulfill its duty to consult, in whole or in part, the honour of the Crown requires that this reliance be made clear to affected Indigenous groups. This helps ensure the appropriate participation of Indigenous groups by making clear to them that consultation is being carried out through that process.

Such notice was absent in Clyde River, but even in Chippewas the notice from the Crown only came after the NEB hearing process had concluded. Nevertheless, the Court found that the Crown had provided adequate notice, as it was sufficiently clear from that the NEB would be the final decision maker, and there was no other Crown entity involved in the process for the purposes of carrying out consultation.

The result is that while the Crown should be making its reliance clear, this is not a strict requirement. If there is any uncertainty as to whether the Crown will be relying on certain consultative processes, Indigenous groups and industry alike may be well advised to seek clarification.

Historical and Cumulative Impacts

Finally, the Supreme Court took the opportunity in Chippewas to address the fact that parties had raised historical and cumulative impacts of the Line 9 pipeline as influencing the scope of the duty to consult.

Citing Carrier Sekani, the Court reiterated that the subject of consultation is the adverse impact of the current decision under consideration, which in this case was limited to the modification of the pipeline, and not necessarily the broader impacts of Line 9 as it currently existed or the circumstances of its original approval in 1976. However, referring to West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia (Chief Inspector of Mines), 2011 BCCA 247, the Supreme Court expanded on this to say that historical and cumulative impacts can permissibly inform the scope of the duty to consult, as they are part of recognizing the existing state of affairs so that the consequences of the project under consideration can be addressed.

Although this discussion in Chippewas was perhaps a bit of an aside, it may be useful when a proposed project is small, but connected to a broader and more complicated context.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

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

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (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

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’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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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

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

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

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