Gitxaala Nation v. Canada, (2014) 473 N.R. 193 (FCA)

• Judge: Sharlow, J.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 18, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 473 N.R. 193 (FCA);2014 FCA 71;[2014] 7 WWR 397;440 Sask R 34

Gitxaala Nation v. Can. (2014), 473 N.R. 193 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.R. TBEd. AP.001

Forestethics Advocacy, Living Oceans Society, and Raincoast Conservation Foundation (applicants in A-56-14), Federation of British Columbia Naturalists carrying on business as BC Nature (applicant in A-59-14), Haisla Nation (applicant in A-63-14), Gitxaala Nation (applicant in A-64-14), Gitga'at First Nation (applicant in A-67-14) v. Attorney General of Canada, Minister of the Environment, National Energy Board, and Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership (respondents)

(A-56-14; A-59-14; A-63-14; A-64-14; A-67-14; 2014 FCA 71; 2014 CAF 71)

Indexed As: Gitxaala Nation v. Canada

Federal Court of Appeal

Sharlow, J.A.

March 18, 2014.

Summary:

Several parties brought applications for judicial review to challenge the recommendations contained in Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Volume 1 and Volume 2 that would tend to favour the completion of the pipeline project known as the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. At issue on this motion was who had jurisdiction to hear the application: the Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeal.

The Federal Court of Appeal, per Sharlow, J.A.,  concluded that the applications for judicial review were within the sole jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to ss. 28(1)(f) and (g) of the Federal Courts Act.

Courts - Topic 4089

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court of Appeal - What constitutes a board or tribunal - Several parties brought applications for judicial review to challenge the recommendations contained in Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Volume 1 and Volume 2 that would tend to favour the completion of the pipeline project known as the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project - At issue on this motion was who had jurisdiction to hear the application: the Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeal - The Federal Court of Appeal, per Sharlow, J.A., concluded that the applications for judicial review were within the sole jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to ss. 28(1)(f) and (g) of the Federal Courts Act - Pursuant to s. 28(1) of the Federal Courts Act, only the Federal Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for judicial review made in respect of the federal boards, commissions and other tribunals listed in paragraphs 28(1)(a) to (r) - The Joint Review Panel was established by an agreement between the Minister of the Environment and the National Energy Board - The agreement gave the Joint Review Panel the mandate to conduct the environmental assessment for the Project pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the National Energy Board Act - The work of the Joint Review Panel essentially was the work of the Board.

Counsel:

Karen Campbell, for the applicants, Forestethics Advocacy, Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation;

Chris Tollefson, for the applicant, Federation of British Columbia Naturalists;

Jennifer Griffiths, for the applicant, Haisla Nation;

Rosanne Kyle, for the applicant, Gitxaala Nation;

Michael Lee Ross, Peter Grant and Krysten Tan, for the applicant, Gitga'at First Nation;

Jan Brongers, for the respondents, Attorney General of Canada and Minister of the Environment;

Richard A. Neufeld, for the respondent, Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership.

Solicitors of Record:

Staff Counsel - Ecojustice, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicants, Forestethics Advocacy, Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation;

Environmental Law Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, for the applicant, Federation of British Columbia Naturalists;

Donovan & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant, Haisla Nation;

Janes Freedman Kyle Corporation, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant, Gitxaala Nation;

Peter Grant & Associates, Vancouver British Columbia, for the applicant, Gitga'at First Nation;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents, Attorney General of Canada and Minister of the Environment;

National Energy Board In House Counsel, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondent, National Energy Board;

Dentons Canada LLP, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondent, Northern Gateway Pipelines Ltd.

This motion was dealt with in writing without the appearance of parties by Sharlow, J.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal, who delivered the following order at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 18, 2014.