Supreme Court

Resource Companies Grapple With Supreme Court Decisions on Duty to Consult Indigenous Communities

Indigenous rights, duty to consult, zack embree

The duty to consult Indigenous communities — what it means and how it should be properly executed — is now a key issue for pipeline and petroleum companies hoping to proceed with proposed mega projects.

This was more than evident earlier this week in downtown Calgary when about 250 people gathered for lunch in The Palliser Hotel eager to hear a panel of experts discuss two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions and their impact on resource project applications.

Canada’s Highest Court Gives Ecuadorians Green Light To Pursue Chevron Assets

Chevron lost a high-profile pollution case in Ecuador in 2011 and was ordered to pay $9.5 billion for cleanup of billions of gallons of toxic waste in the Amazon rainforest. So far, the company hasn’t paid a dime — but a recent ruling in Canada might finally force Chevron to pay up.

Citizens Take Constitutional, Free Speech Challenge Against National Energy Board to Supreme Court

A group of citizens fighting to speak about climate change and the oilsands at National Energy Board (NEB) reviews of pipeline projects, like the current Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, are taking their battle all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The group, comprised of landowners, academics, owners of business and many others, filed a constitutional challenge against the NEB’s restrictive policies that limit public participation and prevent discussion of climate and upstream oil and gas activities.

The purpose of taking the challenge to the Supreme Court “is to ask that Court to direct the NEB to do its job properly,” David Martin, legal counsel, explained in a statement.

The NEB's claim that it cannot consider scientific evidence regarding the long term impacts of the export of bitumen is simply wrong,” Martin said.

“Instead the NEB is making a misguided choice to adopt an unconstitutionally narrow interpretation of its jurisdiction so as to avoid having to address the real competing public interests that pipeline approval applications necessarily entail.”

Subscribe to Supreme Court