Category Archives: Supreme Court of Canada

The IAA Reference: A Missed Opportunity for Guidance on Important Issues Pertaining to Indigenous Peoples

By: Robert Hamilton

Case Commented on: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

 PDF Version: The IAA Reference: A Missed Opportunity for Guidance on Important Issues Pertaining to Indigenous Peoples

In the Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Ref), the Supreme Court of Canada considered the constitutionality of the federal environmental impact assessment regime. For analysis of what precise aspects of the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (IAA) the majority found unconstitutional (and which it held were unproblematic), see the post by my colleagues Martin Olszynski, Nigel Bankes, and David V. Wright here. Continue reading →

Wait, What!? What the Supreme Court Actually Said in the IAA Reference

By: Martin Olszynski, Nigel Bankes, and David Wright

Case Commented On: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Wait, What!? What the Supreme Court Actually Said in the IAA Reference

This past Friday, October 13, the Supreme Court of Canada released its opinion in Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Reference). Writing for a 5:2 majority (Justices Mahmud Jamal and Andromache Karakatsanis dissenting), Chief Justice Richard Wagner held that what is known as the “designated project” (or “major project” in colloquial terms) review scheme of the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (“IAA”) is unconstitutional. This post sets out what is, and is not, constitutional about the IAA regime. We begin by first clarifying the Act’s current legal status. We then set out the principles – post-IAA Reference – of federal and provincial jurisdiction over the environment generally, and then with respect to impact assessment specifically. This is followed by a discussion of the IAA’s specific constitutional defects as found by the majority, the implications of those defects, and their potential remedies. We conclude with some observations regarding the IAA Reference’s relevance to future constitutional battles over federal clean electricity regulations and an oil and gas greenhouse gas emissions cap. Continue reading →

Supreme Court of Canada Will Soon Rule on the Constitutionality of the Federal Impact Assessment Act. Here’s What to Watch for…

By: David V. Wright

Matter Commented On: Forthcoming Supreme Court of Canada reference case in the Matter of An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, SC 2019, c 28 and the Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019-285; and the Matter of a Reference by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to the Court of Appeal of Alberta under the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, s 26

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Will Soon Rule on the Constitutionality of the Federal Impact Assessment Act. Here’s What to Watch for…

For anyone interested in impact assessment in Canada, this is a suspenseful time. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is expected to soon release its ruling on the constitutionality of the federal Impact Assessment Act,  SC 2019, c 28 [IAA] and the associated Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019-285 (the latter setting out the list of projects that trigger application of the regime). My Environmental Impact Assessment Law seminar students and I are set to dive deeply into the decision as soon as it drops, and no doubt many others plan to do similar. For now, this short post sets out ten things to watch for. (For those interested in deeper dives into this statutory regime and how we got here, see my previous publications here, here and here). Continue reading →

Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part III (Commentary)

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part III (Commentary)

Case Commented On: References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII)

This is the third in a series of posts regarding the Supreme Court of Canada’s much-anticipated reference opinion regarding the constitutionality of the federal government’s greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing regime: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII) (GGPPA Reference) (Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186 (GGPPA)). The first post summarized the legislation and the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Richard Wagner. The second post summarized the dissenting opinions of Justices Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown and Malcolm Rowe. In this post, we provide commentary on four aspects of the Reference: the breadth of the matter and the characterization of the GGPPA, the constitutional implications of minimum national standards as defined in this case, the role of provincial inability and extraprovincial effects, and finally the role of domestic courts in adjudicating a global problem like climate change

Continue reading →

Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part II (The Dissents)

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach & Martin Olszynski

 PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part II (The Dissents)

Case Commented On: References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII)

This is the second in a series of posts on the Supreme Court of Canada’s much-anticipated reference opinion regarding the constitutionality of the federal government’s greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing regime: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act , 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII) (GGPPA Reference) (Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186 (GGPPA). The first post summarized the legislation and the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Richard Wagner. In this post, we summarize the dissenting opinions of Justices Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown and Malcolm Rowe. Our goal in reviewing the dissents is to highlight areas of agreement and disagreement between the majority and the dissents.

Continue reading →