Canada: Of Orcas And Orders-In-Council: Where Did Trans Mountain Go Wrong, And How Can It Be Fixed?

Last Updated: September 25 2018
Article by Bernard Roth and Simon Kupi

The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA") in Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada ("Tsleil-Waututh")1 took most people by surprise, regardless of whether they supported or opposed the Trans Mountain Expansion Project ("TMX") it halted—a pipeline expansion that would increase the capacity (from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels of oil per day) and marine shipping potential of the existing Edmonton-to-Burnaby Trans Mountain Pipeline, and which promised to finally deliver on Western Canadian producers' aspirations to secure new Pacific markets. For those disappointed by the decision, the first question is how this situation could have been allowed to happen. The second question is how it can be fixed.

What went wrong?

A natural reaction when something goes wrong is to ask who, or what, is to blame. In the case of the quashing of the TMX approval, we can round up the usual suspects and assess their fault.

The first suspect is the FCA itself. It is fair to say that governments have struggled to keep up with the evolving constitutional law requirements around the duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal groups. At times courts appear to have almost intentionally created uncertainty for governments regarding the duty to consult in order to incent them to reconcile Aboriginal interests by entering into comprehensive settlement agreements or modern treaties. So could one blame the FCA? The answer to this question is clearly "no." The criticisms made of the FCA over the Gitxaala decision quashing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project approvals2 cannot be repeated against the FCA in Tsleil-Waututh. In Gitxaala, there was a strong dissent demonstrating the uncertainty that existed in the law at the time. However, the federal government agreed with the Gitxaala majority judgement, blaming the failure of the Northern Gateway approval on inadequate consultation by the prior federal government. By choosing not to appeal the Gitxaala decision, the current federal government accepted the law on the duty to consult as pronounced by the FCA in that earlier decision, which the FCA has now applied in Tsleil-Waututh. Since Gitxaala has not been overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"), either on appeal or in any subsequent SCC decision, the FCA did not have any option but to apply the law as it had found it. This does not mean that the FCA was correct in Gitxaala—and it may ultimately be found to have been wrong—but until the SCC tells the FCA it was wrong, the FCA's hands are tied. Any society governed by the rule of law does not want courts to depart from recent precedents. To do so undermines certainty and stability in the law, rather than promoting it.

The second suspect is the statutory law that governed the TMX regulatory process. The main statutes applicable to TMX were the National Energy Board Act ("NEB Act"),3 the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 ("CEAA 2012")4 and the Species at Risk Act ("SARA").5 The federal government has suggested that the existing regulatory framework established by this legislation is to blame, and has proposed repealing or replacing both the NEB Act and CEAA 2012 with new legislation introduced through Bill C-69. There are two problems with blaming the statutory regime currently in place. First, competent and committed regulators and government agencies can, and do, adapt to imperfect legislative regimes to make them work with a high degree of certainty and stability. Likewise, good legislative regimes can be defeated if those administrating them do not do so competently. Further, the FCA and SCC have repeatedly found that the NEB's decision-making regime can work very well when properly administered and, in particular, in the context of allowing the federal government to meet its constitutional duty to consult.6 In Gitxaala and Tsleil-Waututh, the FCA took no issue with the Crown consultation and accommodation framework that had been built using the NEB Act and CEAA 2012. The problems in both cases did not arise from any deficiency in the statutes, but rather mistakes in their application.

This takes us to our third suspect, which is the National Energy Board ("NEB"). The FCA found that the NEB acted unreasonably in not including marine traffic within the scope of the TMX "Project" to be assessed pursuant to CEAA 2012, instead limiting its consideration of the effects of marine traffic to its broader public interest assessment under the NEB Act.7 The NEB did this because it believed it lacked jurisdiction to implement mitigation measures regarding the effects of marine traffic—the logic being that if it lacked jurisdiction to enforce mitigation, it should not be considering effects on marine traffic as part of the "Project." It therefore chose to report on the unmitigated effects of marine traffic under the NEB Act rather than the mitigated effects of marine traffic under CEAA 2012, eventually concluding that the unmitigated effects on Southern resident killer whales were adverse and significant, but leaving the issue of mitigation to be addressed by other federal government departments with jurisdiction over marine traffic.

The FCA held that this approach was unreasonable on a number of grounds. First, in order to assess the effects of a project, including proposed mitigation, the FCA held it was not necessary for the NEB to have jurisdiction over implementing mitigation measures, which could be left to the Governor in Council ("GIC").8 Secondly, by not including marine traffic within the scope of the project, the NEB saved the federal government from having to make a justification decision under CEAA 2012, which is required wherever a project will result in significant adverse environmental effects.9 Finally, the approach of the NEB also avoided the obligation under SARA to take all possible mitigation measures to mitigate adverse effects on Southern resident killer whales.10

Although not specifically stated as a ground for finding the NEB's failure to include marine traffic in the scope of the project unreasonable, the FCA (whose Justice Dawson penned both the Tsleil-Waututh and Gitxaala decisions) would have also been well aware that Northern Gateway's regulatory assessment was scoped to include marine traffic out to the 12-mile limit of Canada's territorial seas. This was done to accommodate, at least in part, concerns raised by Aboriginal groups regarding Northern Gateway. The assessment of these effects and all reasonable mitigation measures in relation them resulted in a finding by the Joint Review Panel that Northern Gateway, including all marine traffic associated with it, would not have any significant adverse effects, including on Northern resident killer whales and other marine mammals.11 As a result, through its change of tack (no pun intended) in TMX, the NEB bears some of the responsibility for the alleged administrative law defects that the FCA relied upon to quash the approval.

This leaves the fourth and final suspect—which is the federal government. The FCA held that the federal government failed to follow its clear direction in Gitxaala on what was required by way of adequate consultation and accommodation in the GIC-managed process following a NEB (or in the case of Northern Gateway, Joint Review Panel) recommendation report's issuance. The FCA was clear that it was not sufficient for the federal government to passively listen to the concerns of Aboriginal groups regarding the NEB's report and document the concerns for later consideration by the GIC. Rather, the government's representatives had to be able to enter into a dialogue and address concerns through accommodation measures.12 However, the federal government's approach to consultation, at least in part, was based on its insistence that it lacked jurisdiction to impose new project conditions on the NEB, and could only refer the NEB's recommendations back to it in order to consider new conditions. This clearly frustrated the FCA, which had in Gitxaala—issued five months prior to the government's TMX approval decision—found the government to have had possessed such condition-making authority in the analogous regulatory framework applicable to Northern Gateway. The federal government's approach also created a "catch-22" with respect to mitigating marine vessel traffic effects by way of conditions. Since the NEB claimed to lack this authority, there would have been no sense in the government referring the NEB's report and recommendations back to it to remedy the matter. Yet by denying that it could impose conditions of its own, the federal government made it impossible to mitigate and accommodate the effects in question in the context of TMX.

What is "the fix"?

Clear options are available to fix the problem and set TMX's approval back in place.

The first "fix" would be a successful appeal to the SCC. This would take at least a year, assuming it could be expedited—and would have no guarantee of success. With respect to the merits of any such appeal, the project scoping issue is a significant one. It is not clear that the FCA made a mistake based on the record of the NEB's scoping decision. Regarding the inadequacy of consultation by the federal government, even if the FCA were wrong in Gitxaala, it is not so clear that it was wrong in Tsleil-Waututh owing to the NEB's finding of significant adverse effects on Southern resident killer whales and associated impacts on Aboriginal rights. Both the federal government and the NEB denied the jurisdiction to mitigate these effects through conditions and, thereby, accommodate Aboriginal concerns in relation to them. Effective consultation requires a process in which accommodation of effects is possible—yet the NEB and federal government effectively both threw up their hands when it came to marine traffic effects.

The second "fix" would be to send the NEB's report and recommendations back to the NEB, which would have to re-do its assessment by including marine traffic effects within the scope of the CEAA 2012 "Project." It may well be asked to do this not only to assess effects and mitigation for Southern resident killer whales, but to do so for all marine mammals, fish and birds impacted by TMX's shipping routes. This would be a huge undertaking. Further, if the same NEB panel could not be constituted, the NEB may have to re-do the entire regulatory process, which would realistically take one to two years to complete. This would only get the NEB back to the report and recommendation stage. There would still, of course, have to be post-report consultation by the federal government, which in turn would take a number of months to complete. All in all, it could easily be two to three years before TMX would see a new approval that could reasonably withstand further judicial challenges.

The last "fix"—which would be by far the quickest and most litigation-proof solution—would be to have Parliament itself fix the problem. Specifically, the government could legislate
TMX's NEB certificate back into existence and attach new conditions to the certificate to address the concerns raised by Aboriginal groups during Phase III consultation as well as adverse impacts on Southern resident killer whales. The legislation could then limit the potential for further judicial challenges by providing for a right of appeal directly to the SCC on leave. Construction could recommence immediately on the legislation coming into force, and would not be delayed by litigation. Appropriately-drafted legislation, and meaningful responses to the specific Aboriginal concerns raised during Phase III consultation, would also place the approvals on a strong legal footing. Without this type of legislation, the delay to the TMX expansion will go on for years.

Footnotes

1 2018 FCA 153 [Tsleil-Waututh].

2 Gitxaala Nation v Canada, 2016 FCA 187 [Gitxaala].

3 RSC 1985, c N-7.

4 SC 2012, c 19, s 52.

5 SC 2002, c 29.

6 See e.g. Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc, 2017 SCC 41 at paras 51–60; Clyde River (Hamlet) v Petroleum Geo-Services Inc, 2017 SCC 40 at para 31; Gitxaala, supra note 2 at paras 216–17; Standing Buffalo Dakota First Nation v Enbridge Pipelines Inc, 2009 FCA 308 at para 44.

7 Tsleil-Waututh, supra note 1 at para 470.

8 Ibid at para 455.

9 Ibid at para 470.

10 Ibid at para 456.

11 See Considerations: Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Volume 2 (19 December 2013), NEB File No A56136 at 244, online.

12 Tsleil-Waututh, supra note 1 at para 599.

About Dentons

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com

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. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.

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
Events from this Firm
16 Oct 2018, Other, Calgary, Canada

Dentons and SheEO are coming together for a morning of #radicalgenerosity on October 16, 2018. Meet Vicki Saunders, Founder of SheEO, and learn about how SheEO is changing the landscape for female entrepreneurs.

17 Oct 2018, Webinar, Toronto, Canada

Dentons and SheEO are coming together for an evening of #radicalgenerosity on October 17, 2018. Meet Vicki Saunders, Founder of SheEO, and learn about how SheEO is changing the landscape for female entrepreneurs.

17 Oct 2018, Webinar, Toronto, Canada

With the continued focus on Bill 148’s significant changes to the Employment Standards Act, Dentons’ Toronto Employment and Labour group is pleased to launch a new webinar series focusing on Bill 148.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
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