Cases Considered: Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited v. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development et al, 2008 FC 598, Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302,

PDF Version:  Back on track to socio-ecological ruin: Kearl oil sands project re-authorized

My initial post on the Kearl project (see Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin) was accurate after all. Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s decision in Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302, that held the Kearl joint panel breached section 34 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37, was simply a brief foray into environmental bliss. On June 6, 2008, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans re-issued the requisite authorization under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, to Imperial Oil, reportedly on identical terms and conditions as set out in the original authorization (see my previous post Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization for more discussion on the nullification of the initial authorization). (more…)

Cases Considered: Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited v. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development et al, 2008 FC 598

PDF Version: Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization

The Federal Court’s decision in Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302, is proving to have more significance than I anticipated in my initial blog (see Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin). In that judgment, Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer held the Kearl joint panel erred in law by failing to comply with one of the duties imposed upon it by section 34 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans informed Imperial Oil that, as a consequence of the joint panel’s error in law, the Kearl project authorization issued by the Minister pursuant to the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, was a nullity. In correspondence addressed to Imperial Oil, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stated in part:

Please be advised that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is of the view that, as a result of the Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s decision, the Authorization for Works or Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat and the Authorization to Destroy Fish by any means other than Fishing (ED-03-2806) which was issued by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act to Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited on February 12, 2008, is a nullity.
(more…)

Cases Considered: Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302

PDF Version: Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin: Federal Court Finds Error in Kearl Oil Sands Project Environmental Assessment

In late 2006, media attention in Alberta was directed to the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, home to the Alberta oil sands and boom town Fort McMurray as the modern rendition of the 1800s frontier gold rush. Apparently, the Municipality was about to cook the goose that had laid the golden egg.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Siksika First Nation v. Alberta (Director Southern Region Environment) 2007 ABCA 402

PDF Version: Environmental Permitting and the Scope of the Duty to Consult

The Town of Strathmore faced a sewage problem. It proposed to deal with that problem by constructing a pipeline and disposing of some of its waste water into the Bow above the Siksika Reserve. Not surprisingly the Siksika took a dim view of this and when the Director approved the town’s application under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-12, the Siksika appealed that decision to Alberta’s Environmental Appeal Board (the EAB). The Siksika also sought judicial review arguing amongst other things that the government of Alberta was in breach of its constitutional duty to consult the Nation. Justice Peter McInytre (oral reasons for judgement, available on the EAB’s website ) rejected the Siksika’s JR application on the grounds that the Siksika’s application was premature and therefore moot (because they might succeed before the EAB). In addition Justice McIntyre reasoned that the EAB procedure (and subsequent consideration of the EAB decision by the Minister) might cure any defect (want of consultation) there might have been in the Director’s procedure. There is no suggestion that Justice McIntyre rejected the application on the basis that the Siksika had not exhausted their local remedies.

(more…)