Ktunaxa Nation Council et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations) et al., 2015 BCCA 352

• Judge: Lowry, Bennett and Goepel, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: May 29, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2015 BCCA 352;(2015), 376 B.C.A.C. 105 (CA)

Ktunaxa Nation Council v. B.C. (2015), 376 B.C.A.C. 105 (CA);

    646 W.A.C. 105

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.011

Ktunaxa Nation Council and Kathryn Teneese, on their own behalf and on behalf of all citizens of the Ktunaxa Nation (appellants/petitioners) v. Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and Glacier Resorts Ltd. (respondents/respondents)

(CA41783; 2015 BCCA 352)

Indexed As: Ktunaxa Nation Council et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lowry, Bennett and Goepel, JJ.A.

August 6, 2015.

Summary:

The Minister of Forests, Lands and National Resource Operations approved a Master Development Agreement (MDA) with Glacier Resorts Ltd. to build a ski resort on Crown land in an area of spiritual significance to the Ktunaxa Nation, i.e., the Grizzly Bear Spirit's home. The regulatory review process had lasted for almost two decades. The Ktunaxa Nation Council (KNC) sought judicial review. It submitted that the MDA violated: (1) their right to freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter, and (2) the duty to consult and accommodate under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 568, dismissed the petition. The Court held: (a) s. 2(a) of the Charter did not confer a right to restrict the otherwise lawful use of land on the basis that such use would result in a loss of meaning to religious practises carried on elsewhere; and (b) the process of consultation and accommodation of asserted Aboriginal rights was reasonable. The KNC appealed both findings.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. (1) "[Section] 2(a) does not apply to protect the vitality of religious communities where the vitality of the community is predicated on the assertion by a religious group that, to preserve the communal dimension of its religious beliefs, others are required to act or refrain from acting and behave in a manner consistent with a belief that they do not share." (2) The Minister did not breach his duty to consult and accommodate under s. 35. The process of consultation and the accommodation offered met the reasonableness standard.

Civil Rights - Topic 303

Freedom of conscience and religion - General - Scope of right - See paragraphs 55 to 75.

Civil Rights - Topic 8317

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application - Administrative decisions and Charter protection - See paragraphs 46 to 54.

Civil Rights - Topic 8581.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - See paragraphs 46 to 54, 79.

Crown - Topic 685

Authority of Ministers - Exercise of - Administrative decisions - Appeals or judicial review - See paragraphs 1 to 4.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 3

General - Duty owed to Indians by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties, consultation duties and honour of the Crown) - See paragraphs 76 to 93.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 506

Rights - General - Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 - Interpretation - See paragraphs 76 to 93.

Indians, Inuit and Métis - Topic 6005

Aboriginal rights - General - Nature of - See paragraphs 55 to 75.

Cases Noticed:

R.K. Heli-Ski Panorama Inc. v. Glassman et al., [2005] B.C.T.C. 1622; 2005 BCSC 1622, refd to. [para. 11].

R.K. Heli-Ski Panorama Inc. v. Glassman et al. (2007), 234 B.C.A.C. 248; 387 W.A.C. 248; 2007 BCCA 9, refd to. [para. 11].

Doré v. Barreau du Québec, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395; 428 N.R. 146; 2012 SCC 12, appld. [para. 46].

Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General) (2015), 468 N.R. 323; 2015 SCC 12, consd. [para. 46].

Irving (J.D.) Ltd. v. North Shore Forest Products Marketing Board et al. (2014), 422 N.B.R.(2d) 233; 1096 A.P.R. 233; 2014 NBCA 42, refd to. [para. 48].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2014), 458 N.R. 150; 2014 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 48].

Rogers Communications Inc. et al. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada et al. (2012), 432 N.R. 1; 2012 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 48].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 48].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 48].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat.

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 48].

Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony et al. v. Alberta, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; 390 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 1; 462 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 37, appld. [para. 56].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Jones, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284; 69 N.R. 241; 73 A.R. 133, refd to. [para. 60].

Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem et al., [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551; 323 N.R. 59; 2004 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 63].

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; 327 N.R. 53; 206 B.C.A.C. 52; 338 W.A.C. 52; 2004 SCC 73, consd. [para. 76].

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council v. British Columbia Utilities Commission et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 650; 406 N.R. 333; 293 B.C.A.C. 175; 496 W.A.C. 175; 2010 SCC 43, consd. [para. 76].

Rio Tino Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council - see Carrier Sekani Tribal Council v. British Columbia Utilities Commission et al.

Taku River Tlingit First Nation et al. v. Tulsequah Chief Mine Project (Project Assessment Director) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 550; 327 N.R. 133; 206 B.C.A.C. 132; 338 W.A.C. 132; 2004 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 78].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 2(a) [para. 2].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35(1) [para. 2].

Counsel:

P.R.A. Grant, J. Huberman and K.L. Williams, for the appellants;

P.G. Foy, Q.C., and M.S. Kerwin, for the respondent, Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations;

G.J. Tucker and P. Sheppard, for the respondent, Glacier Resorts Ltd.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 29, 2015, before Lowry, Bennett and Goepel, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Goepel, J.A., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated August 6, 2015.