In mid-2019, Parliament repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and replaced it with the Impact Assessment Act (IAA). The new legislation establishes a broad, science-based, and participatory process for gathering information and making decisions about the potential impacts of designated major projects (including mines, pipelines or nuclear waste sites in Ontario) upon areas of federal jurisdiction.
In September 2019, the Alberta government asked the province’s Court of Appeal to hold a Judicial Reference to determine whether the IAA regime unlawfully intrudes into matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. In March 2020, CELA and two client groups jointly received permission from the Court to intervene in this nationally important test case. In June 2020, CELA filed its written legal argument, which takes the position that the IAA and the underlying regulations are constitutionally valid from a division-of-powers perspective. The Reference hearing by the Alberta Court of Appeal was argued, via videoconference, on February 22-26, 2021.
At the close of the hearing, the Court reserved its decision. In the summer of 2021, the Court allowed the parties and intervenors to file further written submissions regarding the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in March 2021 that upheld the constitutionality of the federal carbon pricing legislation.
In a split decision released by the Alberta Court of Appeal on May 10, 2022, a majority of justices opined that the IAA was unconstitutional because it impermissibly intruded into matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. A dissenting justice found that the IAA was constitutionally valid. The Alberta Court’s opinion has now been appealed by the federal government to the Supreme Court of Canada.
CELA and two Ontario-based clients obtained the Supreme Court’s permission to intervene in the appeal, which was heard in March, 2023.
At the two-day hearing, CELA and other public interest interveners argued that the legislation is constitutionally valid under various heads of federal power in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court reserved its decision, which will likely be released later this year.
Photo credit:
Sleeping Giant Provincial Park, Lake Superior, Ontario by Linda Pim.
Related Casework: The Federal Role in Carbon Pricing
The legal documents posted below represent some of the key materials filed in this proceeding.
CELA and other environmental groups submitted a letter to the federal government to outline the types of amendments to the Impact Assessment Act that are required to address the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling about the constitutionality of the Act.
In this blog, CELA lawyers Joe Castrilli and Richard Lindgren review the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutionality of the federal Impact Assessment Act.
Filed in the Supreme Court of Canada (on appeal from the Alberta Court of Appeal) 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
Supplementary submissions of the Canadian Environmental Law Association to Court of Appeal of Alberta RE: HMQ in right of Alberta (A) v. HMQ in right of Canada (R); Attorney General of Ontario (I) – Court of Appeal File Number 1901-0276
Factum of the Intervenors: Canadian Environmental Law Association, Environmental Defence Canada Inc., and MiningWatch Canada Inc.
Theresa McClenaghan gives evidence about CELA’s experience, expertise, and interest in the Impact Assessment Act, and CELA’s ability to be helpful to the Court.
This week, the federal government is defending its Impact Assessment Act (IAA) (formerly Bill C-69) at the Supreme Court of Canada. Last year, the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a non-binding opinion that the IAA is unconstitutional; the Government of Canada is appealing that opinion. The hearing will be heard on March 21 and 22.
In this blog, CELA Counsel Rick Lindgren outlines what led to the May 10th ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal that Canada’s Impact Assessment Act (IAA) is unconstitutional (Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2022 ABCA 165).
Blog authored by Richard D. Lindgren, CELA Counsel As a specialty legal aid clinic in Ontario, CELA is often involved in precedent-setting appellate cases which involve the interpretation or application of the province’s environmental laws. For example, in the Canadian
CELA Counsel Richard Lindgren blogs about Alberta’s constitutional reference of the federal Impact Assessment Act and its significant implications for protecting the environment and safeguarding public health across Canada.
Richard Lindgren summarizes CELA’s involvement in a constitutional reference case on Canada’s new Impact Assessment Act in the Alberta Court of Appeal. He also explains the new IAA, and the environmental assessment regime that it replaces.
