Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), (1992) 132 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: Thursday January 23, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 132 N.R. 321 (SCC);48 FTR 160;31 ACWS (3d) 250;132 NR 321;[1992] 1 SCR 3;3 Admin LR (2d) 1;84 Alta LR (2d) 129;[1992] 2 WWR 193;JE 92-180;1992 CanLII 110 (SCC);EYB 1992-67211;[1992] CarswellNat 1313;88 DLR (4th) 1;7 CELR (2d) 1;[1992] ACS no 1;[1992] SCJ No 1 (QL)

Oldman River Soc. v. Can. (1992), 132 N.R. 321 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

....................

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta, as represented by the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services and Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (appellants) v. Friends of The Oldman River Society (respondents) and Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General for New Brunswick, Attorney General of Manitoba, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Newfoundland, Minister of Justice of the Northwest Territories, National Indian Brotherhood/Assembly of First Nations, Dene Nation and Metis Association of the Northwest Territories, Native Council of Canada (Alberta), Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Canadian Environ- mental Law Association, Sierra Club of Western Canada, Cultural Survival (Canada), Friends of the Earth and Alberta Wilderness Association (intervenors)

(21890)

Indexed As: Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-

Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin, Stevenson and

Iacobucci, JJ.

January 23, 1992.

Summary:

The federal Minister of Transport approved the construction of a dam by the Province of Alberta on the Oldman River. A group opposed to the construction formed the "Friends of the Oldman River Society". The Society applied for, inter alia, certiorari to quash the approval of the dam project and for mandamus directing the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to comply with the Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a judgment reported 30 F.T.R. 108, dismissed the application. The Society appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 108 N.R. 241, allowed the appeal. The court held that the Ministers were bound to comply with the Guidelines Order. The court quashed the approval and granted mandamus directing the Ministers to comply with the Guidelines Order. The Province and the Ministers appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Stevenson, J., dissenting, dismissed the appeal, with the exception of quashing the order of mandamus with respect to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The court affirmed that the Minister of Transport was bound by the Guidelines Order.

Administrative Law - Topic 3584

Judicial review - Mandamus - Bars - Delay, inconvenience or expense - A trial judge refused to grant orders in the nature of certiorari and mandamus on the grounds of unreasonable delay and futility - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the trial judge erred in so exercising his dis­cretion - The delay was explained, the respondent in the application was not prejudiced and granting prerogative relief was not futile - See paragraphs 103 to 109.

Administrative Law - Topic 5186

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretion­ary bars - Delay, inconvenience or expense - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3584].

Administrative Law - Topic 5198

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretion­ary bars - No useful purpose served (futil­ity) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3584].

Constitutional Law - Topic 4709

Peace, order and good government clause - Particular legislative purposes - Pollu­tion - [See second Pollution Con­trol - Topic 1841].

Constitutional Law - Topic 5952

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Navigation and shipping - Scope of power - The Province of Alberta claimed the federal Navigable Waters Protection Act did not apply to it because of Crown immunity - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the circumstances surrounding the passage of the legislation, informing as they must the context of the statute, do lead to the logical inference that the Crown in right of a province is bound by the Act by neces­sary implication ... the proprietary right the Crown in right of Alberta may have in the bed of the Oldman River is subject to that right of navigation, legislative jurisdiction over which has been exclusively vested in Parliament." - The court stated that the purpose of the Act would be frustrated if the Province was not bound by the Act - See paragraphs 60 to 79.

Crown - Topic 406

Statutes affecting the Crown - Application by necessary implication - [See Constitu­tional Law - Topic 5952].

Crown - Topic 2883

Crown immunity - Exceptions - Applica­tion by necessary implication - [See Con­stitutional Law - Topic 5952].

Pollution Control - Topic 1841

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order - Valid­ity - The Province of Alberta claimed that the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order was ultra vires, because it did not fall within the scope of powers conferred by its enabling legislation (Department of the Environment Act, s. 6) and that the Guidelines Order was inconsistent with the Navigable Waters Protection Act - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Guidelines Order was validly enacted under the Act - Section 6 of the Act could sustain the enactment of mandatory guidelines - There was no inconsistency with the Navi­gable Waters Protection Act - The Minis­ter's duty under the Guidelines Order was supplemental to his responsibility under the Navigable Waters Protection Act - See paragraphs 32 to 47.

Pollution Control - Topic 1841

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order - Valid­ity - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the Guidelines Order is in pith and substance nothing more than an instrument that regulates the manner in which federal institutions must administer their multifar­ious duties and functions. Consequently, it is nothing more than an adjunct of the federal legislative powers affected ... [I]t falls within the purely residuary aspect of the 'Peace, Order and Good Government' power under s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Any intrusion into provincial matters is merely incidental to the pith and sub­stance of the legislation. It must also be remembered that what is involved is es­sentially an information gathering process in furtherance of a decision-making func­tion within federal jurisdiction, and the recommendations made at the conclusion ... are not binding on the decision maker." - See paragraph 101.

Pollution Control - Topic 1842

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order - Inter­pretation - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the Guidelines Order has two fundamental aspects. First, there is the substance of the Guidelines Order dealing with environmental impact assessment to facilitate decision-making under the feder­al head of power through which a proposal is regulated ... this aspect of the Guidelines Order can be sustained on the basis that it is legislation in relation to the relevant subject matters enumerated in s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The second aspect of the legislation is its procedural or or­ganizational element that coordinates the process of assessment, which can in any given case touch upon several areas of federal responsibility, under the auspices of a designated decision maker, or in the vernacular of the Guidelines Order, the 'initiating department'. This ... is unques­tionably intra vires Parliament." - See paragraph 99.

Pollution Control - Topic 1842.2

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order - Par­ticular phrases - "Initiating department" - Section 2 of the Guidelines Order defined "initiating department" to mean any de­partment that was "the" decision making authority for a proposal - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission that use of the definite article "the" instead of the indefinite article "a" evinced an intention to narrow the scope of the Guidelines Order to projects where the federal government was the predominant or sole decision-making authority - The court stated that use of "the" merely des­ignated which department was charged with implementing the Guidelines Order once it was determined that the federal government had a decision-making re­sponsibility - See paragraph 52.

Pollution Control - Topic 1843

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order - Whether provisions mandatory - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order was not merely an administrative directive which could not confer enforceable rights - The court stated that the Guidelines Order was mandatory in nature and amenable to enforcement through prerogative relief - See paragraphs 32 to 47.

Pollution Control - Topic 1845

Environmental assessments or impact studies - Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order - Whether Order applies to projects predating Order - Section 5(a)(ii) of the Department of the Environment Act pro­vided that the "Minister, in exercising his powers and carrying out his duties and functions under section 4, shall (a) initiate, recommend and undertake programs, ... (ii) to ensure that new federal projects ... are assessed early in the planning process." - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Guidelines Order was not restricted to "new" federal projects - Section 5 merely defined the Minister's minimum duties under s. 4 - See paragraph 49.

Statutes - Topic 5363

Delegated legislation - Regulations - Validity of - Scope of authority to make - [See first Pollution Control - Topic 1841].

Statutes - Topic 5365

Delegated legislation - Regulations - Validity of - Inconsistent with other stat­utes - [See first Pollution Control - Topic 1841].

Statutes - Topic 5365

Delegated legislation - Regulations - Validity of - Inconsistent with other stat­utes - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[j]ust as subordinate legislation cannot conflict with its parent legislation ... so too it cannot conflict with other Acts of Parliament. However as a matter of con­struction a court will, where possible, prefer an interpretation that permits recon­ciliation of the two" - See paragraph 42.

Waters - Topic 2128

Artificial waters - Dams - Environmental guidelines - The federal Minister of Transport approved construction of a dam by the Province of Alberta - Opponents of the dam applied to quash the approval and sought mandamus to compel the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to comply with the Environ­mental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order - The Federal Court of Appeal held that both Ministers had a positive duty to comply with the Guidelines Order - The Court of Appeal held that the province was bound by the Guidelines Order - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the province was bound by the Guidelines Order and that the Minister of Transport was to comply with the Guidelines Order, even though the project was substantially completed - The court quashed the order of mandamus respecting the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Waters - Topic 4823

Navigable waters - Right of navigation - Nature of - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a public right of navigation was not a property right, but merely a public right of way - It was not an absolute right - It must be exercised reasonably so as not to interfere with the equal rights of others - The right of navigation was para­mount to the rights of the owner of the bed, including the Crown as owner - The right could only be modified or ex­tinguished by an authorizing statute - A Crown grant could not confer a right to interfere with navigation - The provinces were constitu­tionally incapable of legislat­ing interfer­ence with navigation - See paragraphs 69 to 71.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian Wildlife Federation Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) and Saskatchewan Water Corp., [1989] 3 F.C. 309; 26 F.T.R. 245 (F.C.T.D.), affd. (1989), 99 N.R. 72 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

CNCP Telecommunications v. Alberta Government Telephones and CRTC, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 225; 98 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 28].

Anti-Inflation Act, Re, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373; 9 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 35].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Inmate Disciplinary Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 118; 14 N.R. 285, refd to. [para. 36].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada and Minister of Economic Development, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 401; 84 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 39].

Belanger v. R. (1916), 54 S.C.R. 265, refd to. [para. 42].

R. & W. Paul Ltd. v. Wheat Commission, [1937] A.C. 139 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 42].

George Edwin Gray, Re (1918), 57 S.C.R. 150, refd to. [para. 42].

Daniels v. White, [1968] S.C.R. 517, refd to. [para. 42].

Smith v. R., [1960] S.C.R. 776, refd to. [para. 42].

Environmental Defense Fund Inc. v. Mat­hews (1976), 410 F. Supp. 336 (D.D.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

Angus et al. v. Canada, [1990] 3 F.C. 410; 111 N.R. 321 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corpor­ation of Bombay, [1947] A.C. 58 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Sparling v. Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1015; 89 N.R. 120; 20 Q.A.C. 174, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Eldorado Nuclear Ltd.; R. v. Ura­nium Canada Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 551; 50 N.R. 120, refd to. [para. 64].

Pacific Western Airlines, Re, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 61; 14 N.R. 21, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Ouellette, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 568; 32 N.R. 361, refd to. [para. 64].

Provincial Fisheries, In Re (1896), 26 S.C.R. 444, refd to. [para. 68].

Flewelling v. Johnston (1921), 59 D.L.R. 419, refd to. [para. 68].

Orr Ewing v. Colquhoun (1877), 2 App. Cas. 839 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 69].

Attorney-General v. Johnson (1819), 2 Wils. Ch. 87; 37 E.R. 240, refd to. [para. 69].

Wood v. Esson (1884), 9 S.C.R. 239, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Fisher (1891), 2 Ex. C.R. 365, refd to. [para. 70].

Waters and Water-Powers, Reference Re, [1929] S.C.R. 200, refd to. [para. 70].

Queddy River Driving Boom Co. v. Davidson (1883), 10 S.C.R. 222, refd to. [para. 71].

Champion v. City of Vancouver, [1918] 1 W.W.R. 216 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

Isherwood v. Ontario and Minnesota Power Co. (1911), 18 O.W.R. 459 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 78].

Whitbread v. Walley, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; 120 N.R. 109, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Fowler, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 213; 32 N.R. 230, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Northwest Falling Contractors Ltd., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 292; 32 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 90].

Murphyores Incorporated Pty. Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Australia (1976), 136 C.L.R. 1 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 93].

Singer (Allan) Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790; 90 N.R. 48; 19 Q.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 97].

Devine v. Quebec (Attorney General) - see Singer (Allan) Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général).

Jones v. Attorney General of New Bruns­wick, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 182, refd to. [para. 98].

Knox Contracting Ltd. and Knox v. Canada and Minister of National Rev­enue et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 338; 110 N.R. 171, refd to. [para. 98].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Courtois and Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (Qué.) et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 868; 85 N.R. 260; 15 Q.A.C. 181, refd to. [para. 101].

Montréal Fast Print (1975) Ltd. v. Polylok Corp., [1984] 1 F.C. 713; 52 N.R. 218 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

Charles Osenton & Co. v. Johnston, [1942] A.C. 130, refd to. [para. 104].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 104].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Alberta (Minister of the Environment) (1987), 85 A.R. 321 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 106].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Alberta (Minister of the Environment) (1988), 89 A.R. 339 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 106].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Energy Resources Conservation Board (Alta.) (1988), 89 A.R. 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

Attorney General of Canada v. P.P.G. Industries Canada Ltd. and Pilkington Brothers (Canada) Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 739; 7 N.R. 209, refd to. [para. 126].

Syndicat des employés du commerce de Rivière-du-Loup (section Emilio Bou­cher, C.S.N.) v. Turcotte, [1984] C.A. 316, refd to. [para. 127].

Statutes Noticed:

Booms and other Works Constructed in Navigable Waters whether under the Authority of Provincial Acts or other­wise, An Act respecting, S.C. 1883, c. 43, sect. 1 [para. 72].

Bridges over Navigable Waters, Con­structed under the Authority of Provin­cial Acts, An Act respecting, S.C. 1882, c. 37, generally [para. 73].

Code of Civil Procedure (Qué.), art. 835.1 [para. 127].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91 [para. 55]; sect. 91(10) [para. 67]; sect. 91(12) [para. 90]; sect. 91(29) [para. 87]; sect. 92, sect. 92A [para. 82].

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-15, generally [para. 20].

Department of the Environment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-10, sect. 4(1), sect. 5, sect. 6 [para. 17].

Emerson (Corporation of the Town of), An Act to Authorize Construction of a Free Passenger and Traffic Bridge over the Red River in the Province of Manitoba, S.C. 1880, c. 44, generally [para. 75].

Environmental Assessment and Review Process Guidelines Order, SOR/84-467, sect. 2, sect. 3 [para. 17]; sect. 4 [para. 99]; sect. 6 [para. 17]; sect. 8 [para. 45]; sect. 12(f), sect. 14 [para. 56]; sect. 25 [para. 99].

Evidence Act, R.S.N.B. 1952, c. 74, gen­erally [para. 100].

Federal Court Act, S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 1, sect. 28 [para. 36].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 28(2) [para. 127].

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, sect. 33(2), sect. 33(3) [para. 90]; sect. 35, sect. 37(1), sect. 37(2), sect. 40 [para. 58].

Hydro and Electric Energy Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-13, generally [para. 15].

International River Improvements Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-20, generally [para. 21].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 2(1) [para. 34]; sect. 17 [para. 61].

Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 209, sect. 11 [para. 127].

Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J-1, sect. 5 [para. 127].

National Transportation Act, R.S.C. 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 28, sect. 3(1)(d) [para. 87]; sect. 64 [para. 54].

Navigable Streams and Rivers, An Act for the Better Protection of, S.C. 1873, c. 65, generally [para. 73].

Navigable Waters, An Act respecting certain Works Constructed in or over, R.S.C. 1886, c. 92, generally [para. 76].

Navigable Waters, An Act respecting certain Works Constructed in or over, S.C. 1886, c. 35, sect. 1 [para. 74]; sect. 7 [para. 75].

Navigable Waters, An Act respecting the Protection of, S.C. 1886, c. 36, generally [para. 74].

Navigable Waters Protection Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-22, sect. 5 [para. 18]; sect. 21, sect. 22 [para. 89].

North West Territories Act, R.S.C. 1886, c. 50, generally [para. 68].

Occupational Health and Safety Act, S.Q. 1979, c. 63, generally [para. 101].

Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. O-2, generally [para. 100].

Official Languages of New Brunswick Act, S.N.B. 1969, c. 14, generally [para. 100].

Penitentiary Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-6, sect. 29(3) [para. 36].

Railway Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-3, gen­erally [para. 88].

Removal of Obstructions, by Wreck and like causes, in Navigable Waters of Canada, and other purposes relative to Wrecks, An Act for, S.C. 1874, c. 29, generally [para. 73].

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 753.11(1) [para. 127].

Water Resources Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. W-5, generally [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dussault, R., and L. Borgeat, Administra­tive Law (2nd Ed. 1985), vols. 1, 4, pp. 338-339 [para. 37]; 468-469 [para. 125].

Canada, Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, Report of the National Task Force on Environment and Economy, Sept. 24, 1987, p. 2 [para. 39].

Cotton, R., and D.P. Emond, Environ­mental Impact Assessment, in Environ­mental Rights in Canada (J. Swaigen, ed.) (1981), p. 247 [para. 95].

De Smith, S.A., Judicial Review of Ad­ministrative Action (4th Ed. 1980), p. 423 [para. 105].

Emond, D.P., Environmental Assessment Law in Canada (1978), p. 5 [para. 95].

Emond, D.P., The Case for a Greater Fed­eral Role in the Environmental Protec­tion Field: An Examination of the Pollu­tion Problem and the Constitution (1972), 10 Osgoode Hall L.J. 647, gen­erally [para. 86].

Gibson, Dale, Constitutional Jurisdiction over Environmental Management in Canada (1973), 23 U.T.L.J. 54, p. 85 [para. 85].

Gillespie, Colin J., Enforceable Rights from Administrative Guidelines? (1989-90), 3 C.J.A.L.P. 204, generally [para. 53].

Hatherly, Mary E., Constitutional Jurisdic­tion in Relation to Environmental Law (1986), generally [para. 86].

Hogg, Peter W., Liability of the Crown (2nd Ed. 1989), p. 210 [para. 64].

Jeffrey, Michael I., Environmental Appro­vals in Canada (1989), p. 1.2 [para. 95].

Jones and de Villars, Principles of Admin­istrative Law (1985), pp. 372 [para. 122]; 373-374 [para. 105].

La Forest, G.V., Water Law in Canada (1973), pp. 178-180 [para. 68].

Counsel:

D.R. Thomas, Q.C., Thomas Wakeling and Gerald D. Chipeur, for the Province of Alberta;

E.R. Sojonky, Q.C., Brian Saunders and Joseph de Pencier, for the Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans;

B.A. Crane, Q.C., for the Friends of the Oldman River Society;

Jean K. Samson and Alain Gingras, for the Attorney General of Quebec;

Paul H. Blanchet, for the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

Gordon E. Hannon, for the Attorney Gen­eral of Manitoba;

George H. Copley, for the Attorney Gen­eral of British Columbia;

Robert G. Richards, for the Attorney Gen­eral for Saskatchewan;

B. Gale Welsh, for the Attorney General of Newfoundland;

Robert A. Kasting and J. Donihee, for the Minister of Justice of the Northwest Territories;

Peter W. Hutchins, Diane H. Soroka and Franklin S. Gertler, for the National Indian Brotherhood/Assembly of First Nations;

John J. Gill, for the Dene Nation and Metis Association of the Northwest Territories and the Native Council of Canada (Alberta);

Gregory J. McDade and J. Hanebury, for the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, the Ca­nadian Environmental Law Association, the Sierra Club of Western Canada, the Cultural Survival (Canada) and the Friends of the Earth;

Martin W. Mason, for the Alberta Wilder­ness Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Milner & Steer, Edmonton, Alta., for the Province of Alberta;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans;

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ont., for the Attorney General of Que­bec;

Attorney General for New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B., for the Attorney Gen­eral of New Brunswick;

Attorney General of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man., for the Attorney General of Mani­toba;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., for the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Brian Barrington-Foote, Regina, Sask., for the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Paul D. Dicks, St. John's, Nfld., for the Attorney General of Newfoundland;

Department of Justice, Yellowknife, N.W.T., for the Minister of Justice of the Northwest Territories;

Hutchins, Soroka & Dionne, Montreal, Que., for the National Brotherhood/ Assembly of First Nations;

McCuaig Desrochers, Edmonton, Alta., for the Dene Nation, Metis Associ­ation of the Northwest Territories and the Native Council of Canada (Alberta);

Gregory J. McDade, Vancouver, B.C., and Judith B. Hanebury, Calgary, Alta., for the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, the Ca­nadian Environmental Law Association, the Sierra Club of Western Canada, the Cultural Survival (Canada) and the Friends of the Earth;

Martin W. Mason, Ottawa, Ont., for the Alberta Wilderness Association.

This appeal was heard on February 19 and 20, 1991, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 23, 1992, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

La Forest, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, Mc­Lachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., con­curring) - see paragraphs 1 to 111;

Stevenson, J., dissenting - see para­graphs 112 to 136.