Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

  • Our Team

    Our Team

    • Lawyers & Clerks
    • Leadership Team
    • Board of Directors
    • Human Resources
    • Marketing & Business Development
    • Paraprofessional Services
  • Our Services

    Our Services

    • Service Areas
      • Aboriginal and Indigenous Law
      • Administrative Law
      • Agribusiness
      • Banking and Financial Services
      • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
      • Business Disputes
      • Business Immigration
      • Class Actions
      • Construction Law
      • Corporate and Business
      • Corporate Finance and Securities
      • Corporate Governance and Compliance
      • Cross-Border Law
      • Education Law
      • ESG (Environmental, Social, & Governance)
      • Estates and Trusts
      • Environmental Law
      • Foreign Direct Investment
      • Franchise Law
      • Health Law
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property
      • Labour and Employment
      • Litigation
      • Maritime Law
      • Media & Entertainment
      • Municipal Law
      • P3 and Infrastructure
      • Pensions and Benefits
      • Privacy, Data Protection and Cyber Security
      • Public Law
      • Real Estate
      • Regulation of Professions
      • SISIP LTD Allowances Class Action
      • Tax
      • Technology
      • View All
    • Industries
      • Cannabis
      • Construction & Property Development
      • Emerging & High Growth Companies
      • Energy & Natural Resources
      • Financial Services
      • Government & Institutions
      • Insurance
      • Manufacturing, Processing & Sales
      • Mining
      • Ocean Economy
      • Private Clients
      • Technology
      • View All
    • More Services
      • MC Advisory
      • MC Legal Lab
  • Our Insights
  • Our Firm

    Our Firm

    • Our Values
    • Our History
    • Our Representative Work
    • Our Global Reach
    • Our News
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
    • Pro Bono Program
  • Our Careers

    Our Careers

    • Lawyer Opportunities
    • Business Professional Opportunities
    • Paralegal & Legal Assistant Opportunities
    • Summer Student & Articling Opportunities
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Collective Social Responsibility
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Stay Updated
  • Contact Us
  • LexMundi World Ready
  • Privacy Policy
  • http://linkedin.com
  • http://facebook.com
  • http://twitter.com
  • 1.866.439.6246
Home > Our Insights > Supreme Court of Canada Tackles Freedom of Religion & the Duty to Consult in Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)
Publication

Supreme Court of Canada Tackles Freedom of Religion & the Duty to Consult in Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)

Published:

November 7, 2017

Author(s):

  • Harvey Morrison, KC

Share

Print

On November 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada was faced with the Ktunaxa Nation’s claim that a Ministerial decision to approve a project breached two of its Constitutional rights. In dismissing the claim, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia both clarified the scope of the Charter’s protection of religious freedom and offered useful guidance about how the consultation process must function in order to meet the requirements of the Constitutional duty to consult Aboriginal interests.

  • Seven of the nine Supreme Court judges confirmed that freedom of religion, as guaranteed by section 2(a) of the Charter, protects freedom of worship – but it does not extend to protect the object or spiritual focus of that worship. Two of the judges disagreed with this “restrictive” approach, taking the view that government action that takes away the spiritual significance of beliefs or practices amounts to interference with “an individual’s ability to act in accordance with his or her religious beliefs or practices.” But while this approach appears more sympathetic to Indigenous spirituality, the law of the land is that expressed by the decision of the majority of the judges.
  • All nine Supreme Court judges, however, agreed that in this case, the Minister’s decision that the government satisfied its duty to consult was reasonable. The decision does not break any new consultation “ground”; the Court has considered the duty to consult on many occasions since it first comprehensively outlined the consultation principles 2004. But this decision is a useful re-statement of the those governing principles, the fundamental requirement of which is good faith. Good faith requires both parties to work together in a process of “give and take” to attempt to reconcile their interests. It is also a reminder that the constitutionally required duty to consult and accommodate unproven Aboriginal claims is “a right to a process, not to a particular outcome”.

In Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia, the Ktunaxa Nation’s traditional territories include Qat’muk (an area near Invermere, B.C.). Qat’muk is home to Grizzly Bear Spirit, a central spirit in the First Nation’s religious beliefs. A developer applied for government approval to build a resort in Qat’muk. As part of the approval process, the government consulted the First Nation. The First Nation expressed concern about the project’s impact. The developer changed the plan to respond and although the First Nation was not satisfied, it still committed to further consultation. Very late in the process, the First Nation asserted accommodation was impossible because the project would drive Grizzly Bear Spirit from Qat’muk, permanently impairing its religious beliefs and practices. After failed efforts to continue consultation, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources declared reasonable consultation had occurred and approved the project. The First Nation applied to the court for judicial review of the Minister’s approval decision, asking it to quash the approval on two grounds: first, the departure of Grizzly Spirit would remove the bases of their beliefs and render their practices futile, violating their Charter right to freedom of religion; second, the B.C. government breached its duty to consult and accommodate the First Nation. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the lower courts’ dismissal of the Ktunaxa Nation’s claims:

Freedom of Religion. Section 2 of the Charter guarantees everyone’s “freedom of religion and conscience” and has two aspects: the freedom to hold religious beliefs and the freedom to manifest those beliefs. Claimants must prove two things to persuade a court that their freedom of religion was infringed:

  • They sincerely believe in a practice or belief with a “nexus” with religion. The Supreme Court decided the First Nation established this element. It was undisputed they sincerely believe in the existence and importance of Grizzly Bear Spirit. And the First Nation believed permanent development in Qat’muk would “drive this spirit from that place”. It was irrelevant that the Ktunaxa Nation’s knowledge keeper first came to this particular belief in 2004: “whether this belief is ancient or recent plays no part in our [freedom of religion] analysis. The Charter protects all sincere religious beliefs and practices, old or new.”
  • The government’s actions significantly interferes with their “ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief”. The First Nation’s freedom of religion claim, however, failed at this second element of the test: they were unable to prove the Minister’s decision to approve the project interfered with their freedom to believe in Grizzly Bear Spirit or to manifest that belief. The Supreme Court decided, by a majority of seven to two judges, the claim was beyond the scope of the Charter’s protection of freedom of religion, and declined to “extend” that protection to include protection for Grizzly Bear Spirit’s presence in Qat’muk. The Charter protects “the freedom of worship but does not protect the spiritual focal point of worship” or objects of belief – like Grizzly Bear Spirit.

Duty to Consult. The Supreme Court framed the question as whether the consultation process is consistent with the Crown’s honour – not whether the First Nation obtained the outcome it sought.

  • No Guarantee and No “Veto”. The Supreme Court noted that although the goal and the hope of the consultation process is to achieve agreement and reconciliation of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal (including government) interests, this is not always possible. The Supreme Court confirmed that, “[t]he process is one of ‘give and take’ and outcomes are not guaranteed” and that the Constitution duty to consult, “does not give unsatisfied claimants a veto over development.” In short, where there has been adequate consultation, a development can proceed – even without an Indigenous group’s consent.
  • The role of administrative decision-makers is limited. The Supreme Court clarified that when dealing with a claim of breach of the duty to consult in judicial review proceedings (as in this case), courts must refrain from pronouncing on the validity of an Aboriginal rights claim (recall that the duty to consult arises in most cases with respect to Aboriginal rights claims that have not been proved). Aboriginal rights claims must be proved by proper and tested evidence that meet the legal tests in the context of a trial, not established as an “incident of administrative law proceedings” focussed on the adequacy of consultation and accommodation; permitting this “would invite uncertainty and discourage final settlement of alleged rights through the proper processes.” Administrative decision-makers (such as the Minister) are not generally empowered to decide the existence or scope of Aboriginal rights; they require specifically delegated statutory authority to do so. But they can assess the strength of unproved Aboriginal claims and the adverse impact of proposed government actions on them “to determine the depth of consultation required.”
  • The “uncertain interim”. Acknowledging that for this First Nation, the decision to approve the project may seem “unsatisfactory, indeed tragic”, the best available tools in the difficult period between Aboriginal claim assertion and resolution are consultation and accommodation. The Supreme Court confirmed an injunction (an order that prohibits an action) may be available to a First Nation to delay a project before it proceeds; but the solution is not for the courts to make “far-reaching constitutional declarations in the course of judicial review proceedings.” The Supreme Court observed that stakeholders should identify Aboriginal rights claims early in the process and define them as clearly as possible, which in most cases will lead to agreement and reconciliation; if it does not, mitigating potential adverse impacts on the asserted right ultimately requires resolving questions about the existence and scope of unsettled claims as expeditiously as possible.
  • There was sufficient consultation. Although the Supreme Court judges were divided on the scope of freedom of religion in this case, they unanimously agreed the Minister’s decision that the degree and scope of consultation was adequate and sufficient to satisfy Constitutional requirements was a reasonable one. Referring to the consultation process – which lasted 20 years in this case – the Supreme Court confirmed the First Nation played an active role in all phases of the lengthy regulatory process leading to the project approval, as a result of which the project plan was changed and issues discussed, and observed, “[progress was made and agreement seemed imminent.”

    Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of the Aboriginal Law Team @ McInnes Cooper to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.


    McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.

    © McInnes Cooper, 2017. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.

Share

Print
View Related Content

Related Lawyers

  • Harvey Morrison, QC

    Harvey Morrison, KC

    Partner

Related Services

  • Aboriginal and Indigenous Law

Related Industries

  • Energy & Natural Resources

Related Publications

View All Publications
  • Nova Scotia’s Green Hydrogen Sector: 3 Key Legislative Developments

    Jan 25, 2023

    Buzz around the potential of hydrogen as a green energy source has been growing. And the Atlantic Canadian provinces are poised to become a key…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Self-Determination Success: Indigenous Government Has Parliamentary Privilege

    Dec 6, 2022

    On September 22, 2022, the N.L. Supreme Court confirmed the Nunatsiavut Assembly is a legislative body that holds all privileges, immunities,…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Nova Scotia Ushers in a New Commercial Net-metering Regime

    Nov 10, 2022

    October 2022 amendments to the N.S. Renewable Electricity Regulations have ushered in a new commercial net-metering program in Nova Scotia.…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Court Rules in Favour of Non-Indigenous Interests in Lucrative Elver Fishery

    Jun 24, 2022

    The New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench has issued a court order to stop Indigenous fishers (all apparently members of the Wolastoqey Nation)…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Aquaculture Regulatory Decisions: The Critical Role of Industry Engagement

    Jun 6, 2022

    The Federal Court’s April 22, 2022 decision in Mowi Canada West Inc. v. Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard) has implications for the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Advance Costs: Indigenous Perspective Pivotal in “Pressing Needs” Analysis

    Mar 31, 2022

    On March 18, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that an Indigenous government can still satisfy the impecuniosity requirement for an…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Appeal Court Confirms Key Role of Courts & Injunctions to Resolve Disputes

    Feb 3, 2022

    On January 26, 2022, the British Columbia Court of Appeal extended an injunction preventing protesters from interfering with a logging…

    Read More
    Publication
  • NS Environmental Goals & Climate Change Reduction Act: In Pursuit of Sustainable Prosperity

    Nov 10, 2021

    On November 5, 2021, the Province of Nova Scotia passed the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act. The Act will serve as the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • NB Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction Regulation: 5 Key Obligations

    Oct 29, 2021

    The New Brunswick Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Regulation, effected under the N.B. Climate Change Act, establishes specific…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Webinar | Growing Out Atlantic Canada’s Aquaculture Industry

    Oct 19, 2021

    Canada’s aquaculture industry is poised for growth but that growth is being challenged by regulatory uncertainty and a lack of confidence…

    Read More
    Webinar
  • Hiring a Foreign Company to Provide Services in Canada? 3 Immigration Issues

    Jul 27, 2021

    Canadian entities regularly contract with foreign companies to provide services in Canada. To complete its obligations under the contract, the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Duty to Consult Indigenous Groups: 5 FAQs

    Jun 21, 2021

    There is a duty to consult Indigenous groups when the Crown contemplates actions that may adversely affect their rights under section 35 of the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Dutch Court Orders Corporation to Reduce Emissions in Landmark Decision

    Jun 1, 2021

    This publication has been updated as at July 22, 2021. On May 26, 2021, the Hague District Court in the Netherlands ordered Royal Dutch Shell…

    Read More
    Publication
  • R. v. Desautel: Canadian Constitution Protects Non-Citizen Aboriginal People

    May 10, 2021

    The Supreme Court of Canada continues to expand the scope of Aboriginal rights. On April 23, 2021, in R. v. Desautel, for the first time the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The N.S. Shared Solar Energy Program: 3 Key Facts

    Apr 13, 2021

    On April 7, 2021, the Nova Scotia government introduced Bill 97, amendments to the N.S. Electricity Act aimed at growing the solar industry in…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Indigenous Right to a Moderate Livelihood: A Need for Clarity

    Jan 20, 2021

    This publication has been updated as at July 8, 2022. 2020 was a year filled with challenges, including in the relationship between…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Coping with COVID-19: The Impact on Contractual Performance in the Energy & Natural Resources Sector

    Apr 20, 2020

    As countries around the world grapple with the spread of COVID-19, global restrictions and containment measures have presented a range of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • N.S. Battens Down Marine Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)

    Feb 4, 2020

    Tidal developers considering responding to the FORCE Berth D procurement now have a clearer view of just what the successful proponent will get.…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 5 Key Requirements of Canada’s Federal Environmental Emergency Regulations

    Nov 22, 2019

    The Environmental Emergency Regulations, effected under section 200(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and in force since…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Dan Watt in Energy Regulation Quarterly | The Impact Assessment Act, Canadian Energy Regulator Act and Offshore Energy: A View from Atlantic Canada

    Jul 10, 2018

    If enacted, Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Evolving Duty to Consult Indigenous Peoples: N.S. Court Recognizes a “Duty of Enforcement Consultation” in R. v. Martin

    Jun 29, 2018

    The Crown’s duty to consult Indigenous Peoples has evolved considerably since the Supreme Court of Canada’s first detailed articulation of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Bill C-69 & The New Federal Offshore Renewable Energy Regime

    Feb 20, 2018

    The Canadian federal government has finally revealed how it proposes to regulate offshore renewable energy developments in federal waters. On…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Bill C-69 & the New Federal Impact Assessment Act: The Impact on the Role of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB)

    Feb 20, 2018

    On February 8, 2018, the Canadian federal government proposed a new Impact Assessment Act in Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Navigating the N.S. Marine Renewable Energy Regime: What Project Developers Need to Know

    Feb 13, 2018

    The much-anticipated Nova Scotia marine renewable energy regime finally has the force of law.  First introduced over two years ago, the Nova…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Williams Lake Indian Band v. Canada: Crown Breached Fiduciary Duty to Indigenous Community – in 1858

    Feb 8, 2018

    Over the past 15 years, most of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions respecting Indigenous Peoples in Canada have revolved around the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Balance Between Public & Operator Interests in Offshore Petroleum Resources Data is Set

    Nov 30, 2017

    On November 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Geophysical Service Incorporated’s (GSI) application for leave to appeal the decision…

    Read More
    Publication
  • “Facilitation Payments” to Foreign Public Officials Violates Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act

    Nov 17, 2017

    It’s official: as of October 31, 2017, “facilitation payments” contravene Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA).…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Oil Royalty Regulations November 1, 2017: Key Changes to the Offshore Regime

    Nov 9, 2017

    On November 3, 2017, the Newfoundland and Labrador Government published new Offshore Oil Royalty Regulations replacing the Royalty Regulations,…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Canada Has Other Fish to Fry Between NAFTA Negotiation Rounds: CETA Provisionally Effective September 21, 2017

    Oct 11, 2017

    The fourth round of NAFTA negotiations is set to start on October 11, 2017. But in the meantime, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Proposed N.S. Marine Renewable Energy Act Amendments: New Demonstration Permit for Marine Renewable Energy in Wind & Waves

    Oct 6, 2017

    On October 5, 2017, the N.S. government took another step toward creating a globally competitive marine renewable energy industry and associated…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Charting a Course for Good Governance of Canada’s Emerging Ocean Economy | Offshore Aquaculture and Ocean-based Renewable Energy

    Sep 29, 2017

    Atlantic Canada is at a turning point. The region’s history and economic development have historically been inextricably linked to the ocean.…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 5 Anti-Corruption Law Compliance Program Tips

    Aug 16, 2017

    In the not-so-distant past, Canadian enforcement of its anti-corruption and anti-bribery legal regime has been relatively laid-back. But the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Crown Can Rely on National Energy Board to Fulfill its Duty to Consult

    Jul 28, 2017

    All stakeholders in any major project development already know that adequate consultation before - rather than after - a project is approved is…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Making Waves: What CETA means for Atlantic Canadian Fisheries

    Jul 11, 2017

    The Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) is making waves in Canada, and for good reason: it casts the net of…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Canada v. Mikisew Cree First Nation: Court to Decide Whether Duty to Consult Also Applies Before Legislation is Enacted

    May 26, 2017

    On May 19, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the appeal of the Federal Court of Appeal’s 2016 decision in Canada v Mikisew Cree…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Anti-Corruption Law Exposes Payments to Governments Under Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act

    May 11, 2017

    The Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act is one of several anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws aimed at fighting corruption in the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Appeal Court Maintains Balance Between Public & Operator Interests in Offshore Petroleum Resources Data

    May 1, 2017

    NOTE: On November 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Geophysical Service Incorporated’s (GSI) application for leave to appeal the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Cannabis Legalization in Canada: Seeds have sprouted, but the branches are still bare

    Apr 20, 2017

    On April 13, 2017, Canada’s federal government introduced legislation that, if passed into law, will legalize recreational cannabis in Canada.…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Nip it in the Bud: A 5 Step Plan for Employers to Prepare for Cannabis Legalization in Canada

    Apr 17, 2017

    Recreational cannabis isn’t legal yet - but much of the associated stigma is already gone, usage is up and employers are feeling the workplace…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Daniel Watt and Sara Mahaney in Gard Update: Legal privilege in the corporate context in Canada

    Apr 6, 2017

    Adding a third jurisdiction to Gard Update’s comparison between privilege in the corporate context under U.S. and English law, McInnes Cooper…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Register Before You Lobby in N.B. under Lobbyists’ Registration Act

    Apr 5, 2017

    NOTE: Consultants who were already lobbying and in-house lobbyists already employed by an organization when the new Act took effect were…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Go Deep: How International Legal Reform Can Prevent Legal Uncertainty from Hindering Offshore Wind & Aquaculture Growth

    Mar 31, 2017

    Legal uncertainty is never a good thing for industry: it’s a barrier to investment, and thus an adversary to growth. Unfortunately, the law is…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Confidentiality Risks of Doing Business With the Public Sector Just Got Riskier: Completed NS Access to Information Requests Go Online

    Jan 25, 2017

    Doing business with the public sector creates an often overlooked – but very real – risk that the confidential information a business…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Atlantic Link: 5 Key Questions About the Electrifying Opportunity to Connect to a New Renewable Energy Market

    Jan 13, 2017

    On January 11, 2017, Emera Inc. offered an electrifying opportunity for renewable energy developers to potentially access the New England…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Top Three Atlantic Canada Offshore Legal Developments of 2016

    Dec 20, 2016

    As 2016 draws to a close, Oil & Gas Team @ McInnes Cooper offers its picks for the top three legal developments of 2016 that impacted the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Time to Shine: Nova Scotia to Launch Solar Energy Pilot Program in 2017

    Dec 15, 2016

    On December 13, 2016, the Province of Nova Scotia released for comment draft regulations that will establish the Solar for Community Buildings…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 10 Steps to Anticipate Citizens’ Challenges to New Developments

    Dec 7, 2016

    Recently, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court denied a motion for a temporary stay of proceedings to prevent the deployment of certain tidal devices…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Public & operator interests in offshore petroleum resources data: Where will the balance be struck? in Geophysical Service Incorporated (GSI) v. Encana Corporation

    Nov 9, 2016

    The balance between the public’s interest in accessing offshore petroleum resources data and operators’ commercial interests is at the heart…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Decides Indian Bands Assessing Leased Reserve Lands for Property Tax Purposes Can’t Have it Both Ways in Musqueam Indian Band v. Musqueam Indian Band (Board of Review)

    Sep 12, 2016

    On September 9, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in Musqueam Indian Band v. Musqueam Indian Band (Board of Review) that an Indian band…

    Read More
    Publication
  • DFO Decides “Last In, First Out” Policy (LIFO) is Out

    Jul 7, 2016

    On July 6, 2016, the Federal Department of Fisheries and Ocean’s (DFO) accepted the Ministerial Advisory Panel (MAP) recommendation in the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Weigh Now or Weight Later: New Cargo Container Verified Gross Mass (VGM) Rules Effective July 1, 2016

    Jun 20, 2016

    As of July 1, 2016, packed cargo containers to which the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Chapter VI, Regulation…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Parameters of Municipal Power: Supreme Court of Canada Decides Municipality Can’t Block Radiocommunication Tower Construction

    Jun 17, 2016

    In its June 16, 2016 decision in Rogers Communications Inc. v. Châteauguay (City), the Supreme Court of Canada decided a municipality’s…

    Read More
    Publication
  • FAQs About AMPs (Administrative Monetary Penalties) in the Canadian Offshore

    Jun 10, 2016

    Administrative monetary penalties, or “AMPs”, are a new phenomenon in the Canadian offshore. AMPs were introduced to the Newfoundland &…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Assertion of Aboriginal Right Does Not Automatically Confer Eligibility to Appeal a Regulatory Approval

    Jun 6, 2016

    On June 2, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada denied an Alberta First Nation’s request to appeal the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of its bid…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The East Coast Duty to Consult Indigenous Peoples

    Jun 6, 2016

    Each Provincial government is under the legal duty to consult; the manner in which each carries out its legal duty to consult differs depending…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Legal Defence of Due Diligence: Top 5 FAQs

    May 2, 2016

    “Due diligence” is a legal defence to many charges under occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. Here are five of the most…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The New Nova Scotia Mineral Resources Act: The Good, The Risky & The Neutral

    Apr 21, 2016

    On April 15, 2016, Bill No. 149, The Mineral Resources Act (2016) (2016 Act), passed its second reading in the NS House of Assembly. Although…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Supreme Court of Canada Decides Federal Government Has Legislative Authority Over Métis & Non-Status Indians

    Apr 19, 2016

    On April 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Métis and “non-status Indians” are “Indians” under section 91(24) of the…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Doing Business With the Public Sector: Key Confidentiality Risks & 3 Risk Management Strategies

    Mar 24, 2016

    When a business responds to a public sector Request for Proposal or Expression of Interest (both of which we’ll refer to as an RFP for these…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Construction Project Manager Sentenced to 3½ Years for Workplace Accident in R. v. Vadim Kazenelson (aka “Metron”)

    Mar 9, 2016

    In what appears to be the first case of the conviction of a front line supervisor under section 217.1 of the Criminal Code and sentencing to a…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Energy Safety and Security Act (ESSA): 7 Key Changes Toughen Up Atlantic Offshore and North Oil & Gas Regulatory Regime

    Feb 15, 2016

    On February 26, 2016, the bulk of the offshore-related amendments of the Energy Safety and Security Act (ESSA, formerly known as Bill C-22) take…

    Read More
    Publication
  • NB Kicks-off First Request for Expressions of Interest from Aboriginal Businesses Under New Electricity from Renewable Resources Regulation

    Feb 1, 2016

    On January 29, 2016, the New Brunswick Power Corporation (NB Power) kicked-off compliance with its obligations under the new Electricity from…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Offshore Oil and Gas Decommissioning Best Practices

    Dec 21, 2015

    A practical and current guide created to help you navigate the increasingly important issues surrounding offshore decommissioning and…

    Read More
    Publication
  • The Changing Face of Aboriginal Law: 1 Short Year, 2 Big Court Decisions, 3 Key Implications for the Energy & Natural Resources Sector

    Jul 17, 2015

    On the heels of National Aboriginal Day, we pause to take a look back at two significant Aboriginal law cases decided in the last year, how…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Unproven Aboriginal Rights Enough For Lawsuit Against Private Industry

    Jul 10, 2015

    On April 15, 2015, British Columbia’s Court of Appeal confirmed that First Nations can make certain legal claims grounded in Aboriginal rights…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 3 Reasons for Directors, Officers and Supervisors To Take Occupational Health and Safety Personally

    Jun 25, 2015

    Most people know that a company itself has OHS obligations, and that it risks corporate liability if it violates those obligations. However, not…

    Read More
    Publication
  • 5 “Legal” Reasons Why Natural Resource Companies Should Care About Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

    Dec 10, 2014

    “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) as a concept has been floating around in business-speak for years – but stakeholders in the mining…

    Read More
    Publication
  • SCC Sets Test for – and Defines Rights of – Aboriginal Title in Canada

    Jun 26, 2014

    On June 26, 2014, in its groundbreaking decision on Aboriginal title in Read the SCC’s decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. B.C., 2014 SCC 44,…

    Read More
    Publication
  • Legal Update: The Duty to Consult – Important Lessons from Canada’s Mining Sector

    Mar 15, 2013

    Recent developments in Ontario and Yukon are an important reminder of the practical implications of the Crown’s legal Duty to Consult with…

    Read More
    Publication

Stay Updated

Subscribe to McInnes Cooper to stay current with our leading insights on legal updates, trends, news, events, and services.

Connect With Us:
  • Follow us on Twitter @mcinnescooper
  • Like us on Facebook @mcinnescooperlaw
  • Join us on LinkedIn @mcinnes-cooper
  • 1.866.439.6246
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright © 2023 — McInnes Cooper
Lex Mundi Logo MC Advisory Logo