Source: https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/insights/blogs/canadian-era-perspectives/trans-mountain-decision-application-existing-principles-or-evolving-standard
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:27:48+00:00

Document:
The federal Cabinet approved the TMX Project on November 29, 2016 based on the recommendation of the National Energy Board (NEB). Following a detailed review and environmental assessment, the NEB concluded that the TMX Project was in the public interest and unlikely to cause significant adverse environment effects if certain conditions and mitigation measures were implemented. The NEB’s conclusions were based on an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, which did not assess the impacts of project-related marine traffic. However, the NEB did separately assess this issue under the NEB Act and determined that the operation of project-related vessels would likely result in significant adverse effects on the Southern Resident Killer Whale and traditional Indigenous uses associated with the whale, which is an endangered species. These findings were before Cabinet when it approved the project with 157 conditions. The then proponent also underwent a separate voluntary federal review process for marine transportation, which proposed additional measures to provide for a high level of safety for tanker operations and the proponent agreed to adopt each of the recommended measures.
Projects routinely contain conditions that will be implemented during construction, operation, and decommissioning phases, including Indigenous monitoring plans, and courts have frequently relied upon forward-looking project conditions in determining the adequacy of consultation. In Taku River, for example, the Supreme Court of Canada held that “project approval certification is simply one stage in the process by which a development moves forward” and, in determining that the duty to consult had been discharged, it relied on several forward-looking mitigation measures that were conditions of approval for the re-opening of an old mine, such as the development of more detailed base line information. The Supreme Court of Canada similarly relied on forward-looking requirements for further consultation and reporting in upholding the adequacy of consultation in Chippewas of the Thames.
While purporting to apply a standard of reasonableness, the FCA arguably verged more towards a standard of correctness in assessing the adequacy of consultation. Rather than taking a step back to assess the reasonableness and meaningfulness of the entire process, the FCA engaged in a detailed examination of the back and forth communications to assess whether the verbal dialogue between Indigenous groups and federal officials was meaningful. This is arguably a departure from the less granular analysis and more deferential approach than is typically applied in a reasonableness review, which looks at both the “existence of justification, transparency, and intelligibility within the decision-making process” and “whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law.” The FCA’s reasons also effectively suggest that in at least some cases there needs to be a two-way dialogue between Indigenous groups and very senior government officials, without considering the practical implications of such a requirement for linear projects or whether the verbal dialogue would have be any more interactive if senior officials were engaging Indigenous groups.
It may be argued in the future that a different standard should be applicable for reasons relating to constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights and the Honour of the Crown. While this issue has not been definitively decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, it is important to note that this standard has been held by lower courts to be applicable to decisions engaging the duty to consult and by the Supreme Court for decisions that engage Charter rights. This issue will likely be further litigated but it is prudent in the meantime to ensure that there are responses to every issue raised including explanations for why specific accommodation measures or requests are not implemented.
 Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada,  FCA 153 at paras. 12-13. [“Tsleil-Waututh”]. See also National Energy Board Report, Trans Mountain Expansion Project, May 2016.
 Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc.,  1 SCR 1069 at para. 51.
 Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society v. Canada,  F.C.J. No. 703 at para. 24.
 Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia,  SCC 74 at para. 44-46.
 Chippewas of the Thames, at para. 57.
 Tsleil Waututh at para. 482. It is important to note that the B.C. Supreme Court was only considering the adequacy of provincial Crown consultation for the TMX Project. The issues of whether the federal Crown discharged its duty to consult before the federal Cabinet approved the TMX Project was not before the B.C. Supreme Court. The Squamish also conceded in this case that it was not open to the B.C. Ministers to refuse to issue an approval to Trans Mountain but that they could have required additional information be obtained before a decision is made.
 Haida Nation v. British Columbia,  3 S.C.R. 511 at para. 62 [“Haida”]; Bigstone Cree at para. 34; Canada v. Long Plain First Nation,  FCA 177 at para. 133; West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia,  BCCA 247 at para. 197.
 Gitxaala Nation v. Canada,  FCA 187 at para. 183 and 214 and Haida at para. 62.
 Prophet River First Nation v. British Columbia,  BCCA 58 at para. 50.
 Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador,  SCC 62 at para. 16.
 See for example Williams v. British Columbia,  BCSC 1425 at paras. 121-122; Fort Chipewan v. Metis Nation of Alberta Local 125 v. Alberta,  ABQB 713 at paras. 466-471; Bigstone Cree at para. 65; Squamish Nation at paras. 185-186.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.