Voters Taking Action On Climate Change V. British Columbia (Energy And Mines), 2015 BCSC 471

MT
McCarthy Tétrault LLP

Contributor

McCarthy Tétrault LLP provides a broad range of legal services, advising on large and complex assignments for Canadian and international interests. The firm has substantial presence in Canada’s major commercial centres and in New York City, US and London, UK.
In this case, the British Columbia Supreme Court refused to grant standing to an environmental advocacy group seeking to challenge decisions of the Chief Inspector of Mines...
Canada Energy and Natural Resources
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Voters Taking Action On Climate Change V. British Columbia (Energy And Mines), 2015 BCSC 471

In this case, the British Columbia Supreme Court refused to grant standing to an environmental advocacy group seeking to challenge decisions of the Chief Inspector of Mines and the Minister of Environment in connection with the expansion of Texada Quarrying Ltd.'s coal handling and storage operation. The advocacy group did not represent any resident of Texada Island, and the nearby First Nation said it did not oppose the project.

Voters Taking Action on Climate Change brought a petition challenging 2013 decisions to amend permits issued to Texada Quarrying. The first decision was that of the Chief Inspector of Mines, amending the permit to allow increased coal storage at the quarry. The second decision was that of the Minister of Environment, determining that Texada did not also require a permit under the Environmental Management Act.

While the Court agreed that a clearly framed issued had been established — whether the exercise of statutory authority to regulate coal storage and handling facilities is regulated by the Mines Act or the Environmental Management Act — the advocacy group had failed to connect the issue to a matter of sufficient public importance so as to ground public interest standing to proceed. The Court also held that even if standing had been granted, the decisions were reasonable and would not have been overturned.

To view the full article please click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More