Louis v. British Columbia (Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources) et al., (2013) 342 B.C.A.C. 280 (CA)

• Judge: Tysoe, Groberman and Bennett, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: September 26, 2013
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2013), 342 B.C.A.C. 280 (CA);2013 BCCA 412

Louis v. B.C. (2013), 342 B.C.A.C. 280 (CA);

    585 W.A.C. 280

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] B.C.A.C. TBEd. SE.035

Reginald Louis on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the Stellat'en First Nation and the Stellat'en First Nation (appellants/petitioners) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources and the Chief Inspector of Mines and Thompson Creek Metals Company Inc. (respondents/respondents)

(CA039283; 2013 BCCA 412)

Indexed As: Louis v. British Columbia (Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Tysoe, Groberman and Bennett, JJ.A.

September 26, 2013.

Summary:

The Stellat'en First Nation applied for judicial review, seeking a number of orders on the primary basis that the Province of British Columbia (Crown) failed to adequately and meaningfully consult them and, if necessary, accommodate their concerns in relation to the expansion of the Endako mine, an open-pit molybodenum mine, located on land over which Stellat'en asserted Aboriginal title and rights.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1070, dismissed the First Nation's claims. The court found that, in the circumstances, the Crown acted honourably in its efforts to consult Stellat'en on the proposed expansion. It correctly determined the scope of its duty to consult Stellat'en and then engaged in consultation that was adequate and reasonable in the circumstances. The Crown thus had discharged its duty to consult. No duty to accommodate arose from the consultation process. The First Nation appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Indians, Inuit and Metis - Topic 3

General - Duty owed to Indians by Crown (incl. fiduciary duties, consultation duties and honour of the Crown) - See paragraphs 65 to 126.

Cases Noticed:

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, refd to. [para. 69].

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, refd to. [para. 72].

Kwikwetlem First Nation v. British Columbia Transmission Corp. et al., [2009] 9 W.W.R. 92; 266 B.C.A.C. 250; 449 W.A.C. 250; 89 B.C.L.R.(4th) 273; 2009 BCCA 68, refd to. [para. 104].

Squamish Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Sustainable Resource Management) et al., [2004] B.C.T.C. 1320; 34 B.C.L.R.(4th) 280; 2004 BCSC 1320, refd to. [para. 105].

Nlaka'pamux Nation Tribal Council v. Griffin et al. (2011), 306 B.C.A.C. 105; 516 W.A.C. 105; 2011 BCCA 78, refd to. [para. 105].

Counsel:

G.J. McDade, Q.C., and L.C. Glowacki, for the appellants;

G.R. Thompson and M.C. Akey, for the respondents, HMQ and the Chief Inspector;

T.F. Isaac, L.M. Martz and M.L. Camley, for the respondent, Thompson Creek Metals.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 26 to 28, 2012, before Tysoe, Groberman and Bennett, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Groberman, J.A., on September 26, 2013.