Taku River Tlingit First Nation et al. v. Tulsequah Chief Mine Project (Project Assessment Director) et al., 2000 BCSC 1001

• Judge: Kirkpatrick, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: June 28, 2000
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2000 BCSC 1001;[2000] B.C.T.C. 438 (SC)

Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. Mine Project, [2000] B.C.T.C. 438 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.T.C. TBEd. JL.056

The Taku River Tlingit First Nation and Melvin Jack, on behalf of himself and all other members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (petitioners) v. Norm Ringstad, in his capacity as the Project Assessment Director for the Tulsequah Chief Mine Project, Sheila Wynn, in her capacity as the Executive Director, Environmental Assessment Office, the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, and the Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister responsible for Northern Development and Redfern Resources Ltd. (respondents)

(A990300; 2000 BCSC 1001)

Indexed As: Taku River Tlingit First Nation et al. v. Tulsequah Chief Mine Project (Project Assessment Director) et al.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Kirkpatrick, J.

June 28, 2000.

Summary:

Redfern obtained a project approval certificate respecting the re-opening of a mine on lands which were the subject of an aboriginal land claim. The aboriginals petitioned under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to set aside the certificate. The real dispute about the project was the plan to build an access road through a wilderness area.

A judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court, in Chambers, in a decision reported in 9 B.C.T.C. 213, directed that the issues concerning the determination of the claims of aboriginal right and title be referred to the trial list. The aboriginals applied for leave to appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Goldie, J.A., in a decision reported in 128 B.C.A.C. 120; 208 W.A.C. 120, dismissed the application for leave. The aboriginals applied for a review of Goldie, J.A.'s, decision.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in 131 B.C.A.C. 13; 214 W.A.C. 13, dismissed the application for review.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in the following decision, granted a declaration that a Recommendation Report of the project committee and a Referral by the Executive Director of the Environmental Assessment Office did not conform to legal requirements. The Recommendations did not fairly and accurately describe the concerns of all committee members, including the aboriginals; therefore, the Ministers' decision was an exercise of discretion which failed to consider a relevant matter under the Environmental Assessment Act. The Ministers' decision to issue the certificate, resting as it did on the Recommendations Report of the project committee, did not satisfy the statutory purposes of the Act. The Ministers' decision was unreasonable because there was inadequate (and perhaps no) assessment of evidence produced by or on behalf of the aboriginals. The decision was unreasonable in that the Report failed to fairly and fully advise the Ministers of the disputes that formed the core of the aboriginals' concerns. The statutory obligation on the Crown to promote sustainability was not fully addressed. The court quashed the Ministers' decision to issue the project approval certificate. The court referred the matter back to the responsible Ministers for reconsideration after a revised project committee report, which meaningfully addressed the aboriginals' concerns, was delivered to the Ministers.

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - See paragraphs 109 to 118.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope of review - See paragraph 22.

Administrative Law - Topic 3203

Judicial review - General - Matters not subject to review - See paragraphs 22 to 31.

Administrative Law - Topic 3211

Judicial review - General - Review of exercise of statutory power - See paragraphs 22 to 31.

Administrative Law - Topic 3221

Judicial review - General - Unreasonableness of decision attacked - See paragraphs 54 to 108.

Crown - Topic 685

Authority of Ministers - Exercise of - Administrative decisions - Judicial review - See paragraphs 43 to 54, 79 to 108.

Cases Noticed:

Lawson v. British Columbia (Solicitor General) et al. (1990), 65 D.L.R.(4th) 537 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1992), 8 B.C.A.C. 211; 117 W.A.C. 211; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 533 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Colony Farm Holdings Ltd. v. British Columbia Racing Commission, [1991] B.C.J. No. 283 (S.C.), dist. [para. 27].

Save Richmond Farmland Society Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. Richmond (Township) (1988), 36 Admin. L.R. 45 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Benias v. Vancouver (1983), 23 M.P.L.R. 269; 3 D.L.R.(4th) 511 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Thames Jockey Club v. New Zealand Racing Authority, [1974] N.Z.L.R. 609 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada and Canada (Minister of Economic Development), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354; 137 D.L.R.(3d) 558, refd to. [para. 36].

Friends of the Old Man River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321; [1992] 2 W.W.R. 193; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 39].

Calgary Power Ltd. v. Copithorne, [1959] S.C.R. 24, refd to. [para. 43].

Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers) - see Pezim v. British Columbia (Securities Commission) et al.

Pezim v. British Columbia (Securities Commission) et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1; [1994] 7 W.W.R. 1; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 43].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 43].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 10; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 43].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 43].

Union of Nova Scotia Indians v. Canada (Attorney General) (1996), 122 F.T.R. 81; 22 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 293 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

Cheslatta Carrier Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director) (1998), 53 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

Bow Valley Naturalists Society et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Environment Protection) et al. (1995), 177 A.R. 161; 35 Alta. L.R.(3d) 285 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44].

Alberta Wilderness Association et al. v. Express Pipelines Ltd. et al. (1996), 201 N.R. 336; 42 Admin. L.R.(2d) 296 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Quebec (Procureur général) v. Office national de l'énergie, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 159; 163 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 84].

United Nurses of Alberta, Local 1 and Coombe v. Calgary General Hospital (1989), 99 A.R. 157; 39 Admin. L.R. 244 (Q.B.), affd. (1990), 112 A.R. 170; 46 Admin. L.R. 245 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Newfoundland et al. (1995), 132 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 205; 410 A.P.R. 205 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 104].

Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Memorial University of Newfoundland (Marine Institute) - see Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Newfoundland et al.

Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Newfoundland et al. (1998), 167 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 72; 513 A.P.R. 72; 26 C.P.C.(4th) 225 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

Gaw v. Commissioner of Corrections (1986), 2 F.T.R. 122 (T.D.), dist. [para. 106].

Old St. Boniface Residents' Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1170; 116 N.R. 46; 69 Man.R.(2d) 134, dist. [para. 106].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, reving. [1976] 2 F.C. 20 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Adams (G.W.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 101; 202 N.R. 89; [1996] 4 C.N.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 123].

Halfway River First Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) et al., [1999] 4 C.N.L.R. 1; 129 B.C.A.C. 32; 210 W.A.C. 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161; 13 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; 111 N.R. 241; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 263; 70 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Marshall (D.J.) Jr., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456; 246 N.R. 83; 178 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 549 A.P.R. 201, refd to. [para. 125].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R. 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 126].

Lalonde et al. v. Ontario (Health Services Restructuring Commission) (1999), 131 O.A.C. 291; 181 D.L.R.(4th) 263 (Div. Ct.), not appld. [para. 27].

Blueberry River Indian Band and Doig River Indian Band v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 344; 190 N.R. 89; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 193; [1996] 2 C.N.L.R. 25, dist. [para. 131].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 35 [para. 119].

Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 119, sect. 2, sect. 10, sect. 29(2), sect. 29(4), sect. 30 [para. 21]; sect. 30(1) [para. 32].

Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241, sect. 1, sect. 2(2) [para. 20].

Counsel:

A. Pape and J. Teillet, for the petitioners;

P.J. Pearlman, Q.C., and S.I. Macdonald, for the respondents, Norm Ringstad, Sheila Wynn, Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, Minister of Energy and Mines, and Minister Responsible for Northern Developments, and the Attorney General of British Columbia;

R. Kaardal & L.D. Hynes, for the respondent, Redfern Resources Ltd.

This petition was heard in Chambers before Kirkpatrick, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 13-18 and 20-23, 2000. The decision of Kirkpatrick, J., was filed on June 28, 2000.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.