Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)

Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2017-11-02
Neutral citation
2017 SCC 54
Report
[2017] 2 SCR 386
Case number
36664
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell; Rowe, Malcolm
On appeal from
British Columbia
Notes
SCC Case Information: 36664
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 386
Appeal heard: December 1, 2016
Judgment rendered: November 2, 2017
Docket: 36664
Between:
Ktunaxa Nation Council and Kathryn Teneese, on their own behalf and on behalf of all citizens of the Ktunaxa Nation
Appellants
and
Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and Glacier Resorts Ltd.
Respondents
- and -
Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, Kootenay Presbytery (United Church of Canada), Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Christian Legal Fellowship, Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council, Amnesty International Canada, Te’mexw Treaty Association, Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance, Shibogama First Nations Council, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Council of the Passamaquoddy Nation at Schoodic, Katzie First Nation, West Moberly First Nations and Prophet River First Nation
Interveners
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ.
Joint Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 115)
McLachlin C.J. and Rowe J. (Abella, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Brown JJ. concurring)
Partially concurring reasons:
(paras. 116 to 156)
Moldaver J. (Côté J. concurring)
Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 386
Ktunaxa Nation Council and
Kathryn Teneese, on their own behalf and
on behalf of all citizens of the Ktunaxa Nation Appellants
v.
Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural
Resource Operations and Glacier Resorts Ltd. Respondents
and
Attorney General of Canada,
Attorney General of Saskatchewan,
Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association,
South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario,
Kootenay Presbytery (United Church of Canada),
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada,
Christian Legal Fellowship,
Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council,
Amnesty International Canada,
Te’mexw Treaty Association,
Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance,
Shibogama First Nations Council,
Canadian Chamber of Commerce,
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association,
Council of the Passamaquoddy Nation at Schoodic,
Katzie First Nation, West Moberly First Nations
and Prophet River First Nation Interveners
Indexed as: Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)
2017 SCC 54
File No.: 36664.
2016: December 1; 2017: November 2.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Freedom of religion — First Nation alleging that ski resort project would drive spirit central to their religious beliefs from their traditional territory — Provincial government approving ski resort despite claim by First Nation that development would breach right to freedom of religion — Whether Minister’s decision violates s. 2 (a) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .
Constitutional law — Aboriginal rights — Crown — Duty to consult — Provincial government approving ski resort despite claim by First Nation that development would breach constitutional right to protection of Aboriginal interests — Whether Minister’s decision that Crown had met duty to consult and accommodate was reasonable — Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 .
The Ktunaxa are a First Nation whose traditional territories include an area in British Columbia that they call Qat’muk. Qat’muk is a place of spiritual significance for them because it is home to Grizzly Bear Spirit, a principal spirit within Ktunaxa religious beliefs and cosmology. Glacier Resorts sought government approval to build a year‑round ski resort in Qat’muk. The Ktunaxa were consulted and raised concerns about the impact of the project, and as a result, the resort plan was changed to add new protections for Ktunaxa interests. The Ktunaxa remained unsatisfied, but committed themselves to further consultation. Late in the process, the Ktunaxa adopted the position that accommodation was impossible because the project would drive Grizzly Bear Spirit from Qat’muk and therefore irrevocably impair their religious beliefs and practices. After efforts to continue consultation failed, the respondent Minister declared that reasonable consultation had occurred and approved the project. The Ktunaxa brought a petition for judicial review of the approval decision on the grounds that the project would violate their constitutional right to freedom of religion, and that the Minister’s decision breached the Crown’s duty of consultation and accommodation. The chambers judge dismissed the petition, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that decision.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
Per McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Brown and Rowe JJ.: The Minister’s decision does not violate the Ktunaxa’s s. 2 (a) Charter right to freedom of religion. In this case, the Ktunaxa’s claim does not fall within the scope of s. 2 (a) because neither the Ktunaxa’s freedom to hold their beliefs nor their freedom to manifest those beliefs is infringed by the Minister’s decision to approve the project.
To establish an infringement of the right to freedom of religion, the claimant must demonstrate (1) that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion, and (2) that the impugned state conduct interferes, in a manner that is non‑trivial or not insubstantial, with his or her ability to act in accordance with that practice or belief. In this case, the Ktunaxa sincerely believe in the existence and importance of Grizzly Bear Spirit. They also believe that permanent development in Qat’muk will drive this spirit from that place.
The second part of the test, however, is not met. The Ktunaxa must show that the Minister’s decision to approve the development interferes either with their freedom to believe in Grizzly Bear Spirit or their freedom to manifest that belief. Yet the Ktunaxa are not seeking protection for the freedom to believe in Grizzly Bear Spirit or to pursue practices related to it. Rather, they seek to protect the presence of Grizzly Bear Spirit itself and the subjective spiritual meaning they derive from it. This is a novel claim that would extend s. 2 (a) beyond its scope and would put deeply held personal beliefs under judicial scrutiny. The state’s duty under s. 2 (a) is not to protect the object of beliefs or the spiritual focal point of worship, such as Grizzly Bear Spirit. Rather, the state’s duty is to protect everyone’s freedom to hold such beliefs and to manifest them in worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.
In addition, the Minister’s decision that the Crown had met its duty to consult and accommodate under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 was reasonable. The Minister’s decision is entitled to deference. A court reviewing an administrative decision under s. 35 does not decide the constitutional issue de novo raised in isolation on a standard of correctness, and therefore does not decide the issue for itself. Rather, it must ask whether the decision maker’s finding on the issue was reasonable.
The constitutional guarantee of s. 35 is not confined to treaty rights or to proven or settled Aboriginal rights and title claims. Section 35 also protects the potential rights embedded in as‑yet unproven Aboriginal claims and, pending the determination of such claims through negotiation or otherwise, may require the Crown to consult and accommodate Aboriginal interests. This obligation flows from the honour of the Crown and is constitutionalized by s. 35 .
In this case, the Ktunaxa’s petition asked the courts, in the guise of judicial review of an administrative decision, to pronounce on the validity of their claim to a sacred site and associated spiritual practices. This declaration cannot be made by a court sitting in judicial review of an administrative decision. In judicial proceedings, such a declaration can only be made after a trial of the issue and with the benefit of pleadings, discovery, evidence, and submissions. Nor can administrative decision makers themselves pronounce upon the existence or scope of Aboriginal rights without specifically delegated authority. Aboriginal rights must be proven by tested evidence; they cannot be established as an incident of administrative law proceedings that centre on the adequacy of consultation and accommodation. To permit this would invite uncertainty and discourage final settlement of alleged rights through the proper processes. In the interim, while claims are resolved, consultation and accommodation are the best available legal tools for achieving reconciliation.
The record here supports the reasonableness of the Minister’s conclusion that the s. 35 obligation of consultation and accommodation had been met. The Ktunaxa spiritual claims to Qat’muk had been acknowledged from the outset. Negotiations spanning two decades and deep consultation had taken place. Many changes had been made to the project to accommodate the Ktunaxa’s spiritual claims. At a point when it appeared all major issues had been resolved, the Ktunaxa adopted a new, absolute position that no accommodation was possible because permanent structures would drive Grizzly Bear Spirit from Qat’muk. The Minister sought to consult with the Ktunaxa on the newly formulated claim, but was told that there was no point in further consultation. The process protected by s. 35 was at an end.
The record does not suggest, conversely, that the Minister mischaracterized the right as a claim to preclude development, instead of a claim to a spiritual right. The Minister understood that this right entailed practices which depended on the continued presence of Grizzly Bear Spirit in Qat’muk, which the Ktunaxa believed would be driven out by the development. Spiritual practices and interests were raised at the beginning of the process and continued to be discussed throughout. Nor did the Minister misunderstand the Ktunaxa’s secrecy imperative, which had contributed to the late disclosure of the true nature of the claim: an absolute claim to a sacred site, which must be preserved and protected from permanent human habitation. The Minister understood and accepted that spiritual beliefs did not permit details of beliefs to be shared with outsiders. Nothing in the record suggests that the Minister had forgotten this fundamental point when he made his decision that adequate consultation had occurred. In addition, the Minister did not treat the broader spiritual right as weak. The Minister considered the overall spiritual claim to be strong, but had doubts about the strength of the new, absolute claim that no accommodation was possible because the project would drive Grizzly Bear Spirit from Qat’muk. The record also does not demonstrate that the Minister failed to properly assess the adverse impact of the development on the spiritual interests of the Ktunaxa.
Ultimately, the consultation was not inadequate. The Minister engaged in deep consultation on the spiritual claim. This level of consultation was confirmed by both the chambers judge and the Court of Appeal. Moreover, the record does not establish that no accommodation was made with respect to the spiritual right. While the Minister did not offer the ultimate accommodation demanded by the Ktunaxa — complete rejection of the ski resort project — the Crown met its obligation to consult and accommodate. Section 35 guarantees a process, not a particular result. There is no guarantee that, in the end, the specific accommodation sought will be warranted or possible. Section 35 does not give unsatisfied claimants a veto. Where adequate consultation has occurred, a development may proceed without consent.
Per Moldaver and Côté JJ.: The Minister reasonably concluded that the duty to consult and accommodate the Ktunaxa under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 was met; however, the Minister’s decision to approve the ski resort infringed the Ktunaxa’s s. 2 (a) Charter right to religious freedom.
The first part of the s. 2 (a) test is not at issue in this case. The second part focuses on whether state action has interfered with the ability of a person to act in accordance with his or her religious beliefs or practices. Where state conduct renders a person’s sincerely held religious beliefs devoid of all religious significance, this infringes a person’s right to religious freedom. Religious beliefs have spiritual significance for the believer. When this significance is taken away by state action, the person can no longer act in accordance with his or her religious beliefs, constituting an infringement of s. 2 (a).
This kind of state interference is a reality where individuals find spiritual fulfillment through their connection to the physical world. To ensure that all religions are afforded the same level of protection, courts must be alive to the unique characteristics of each religion, and the distinct ways in which state action may interfere with that religion’s beliefs or practices. In many Indigenous religions, land is not only the site of spiritual practices; land itself can be sacred. As such, state action that impacts land can sever the connection to the divine, rendering beliefs and practices devoid of spiritual significance. Where state action has this effect on an Indigenous religion, it interferes with the ability to act in accordance with religious beliefs and practices.
In this case, the Ktunaxa sincerely believe that Grizzly Bear Spirit inhabits Qat’muk, a body of sacred land in their religion, and that the Minister’s decision to approve the ski resort would sever their connection to Qat’muk and to Grizzly Bear Spirit. As a result, the Ktunaxa would no longer receive spiritual guidance and assistance from Grizzly Bear Spirit. Their religious beliefs in Grizzly Bear Spirit would become entirely devoid of religious significance, and accordingly, their prayers, ceremonies, and rituals associated with Grizzly Bear Spirit would become nothing more than empty words and hollow gestures. Moreover, without their spiritual connection to Qat’muk and to Grizzly Bear Spirit, the Ktunaxa would be unable to pass on their beliefs and practices to future generations. Therefore, the Minister’s decision approving the proposed development interferes with the Ktunaxa’s ability to act in accordance with their religious beliefs or practices in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial.
The Minister’s decision is reasonable, however, because it reflects a proportionate balancing between the Ktunaxa’s s. 2 (a) Charter right and the Minister’s statutory objectives: to administer Crown land and dispose of it in the public interest. A proportionate balancing is one that gives effect as fully as possible to the Charter protections at stake given the particular statutory mandate. When the Minister balances the Charter protections with these objectives, he must ensure that the Charter protections are affected as little as reasonably possible in light of the state’s particular objectives.
In this case, the Minister did not refer to s. 2 (a) explicitly in his reasons for decision; however, it is clear from his reasons that he was alive to the substance of the Ktunaxa’s s. 2 (a) right. He recognized that the development put at stake the Ktunaxa’s spiritual connection to Qat’muk.
In addition, it is implicit from the Minister’s reasons that he proportionately balanced the Ktunaxa’s s. 2 (a) right with his statutory objectives. The Minister tried to limit the impact of the development on the substance of the Ktunaxa’s s. 2 (a) right as much as reasonably possible given these objectives. He provided significant accommodation measures that specifically addressed the Ktunaxa’s spiritual connection to the land. Ultimately, however, the Minister had two options before him: approve the development or permit the Ktunaxa to veto the development on the basis of their freedom of religion. Granting the Ktunaxa a power to veto development over the land would effectively give them a significant property interest in Qat’muk — namely, a power to exclude others from constructing permanent structures on public land. This right of exclusion would not be a minimal or negligible restraint on public ownership. It can be implied from the Minister’s reasons that permitting the Ktunaxa to dictate the use of a large tract of land according to their religious belief was not consistent with his statutory mandate. Rather, it would significantly undermine, if not completely compromise, this mandate. In view of the options open to the Minister, his decision was reasonable, and amounted to a proportionate balancing.
Cases Cited
By McLachlin C.J. and Rowe J.
Applied: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; referred to: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551; Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 613; Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 3; Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 467; Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, 2006 SCC 6, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256; R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. (1984), 48 O.R. (2d) 395, rev’d R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; Health Services and Support — Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391; Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157; India v. Badesha, 2017 SCC 44, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 127; S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, 2012 SCC 7, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 235; Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St‑Jérôme‑Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), 2004 SCC 48, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 650; R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; Mitchell v. M.N.R., 2001 SCC 33, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 911; Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 257; Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 103.
By Moldaver J.
Applied: Doré v. Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395; referred to: Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 12, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 613; Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 37, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912; Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 2004 SCC 47, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551; Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, 2006 SCC 6, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256; Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, 2012 SCC 7, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 235; Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 3; Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559; R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2 (a).
Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 .
Environmental Assessment Act, S.B.C. 1994, c. 35.
Environmental Assessment Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 43.
Land Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 245, ss. 4, 11(1).
Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 307, s. 5(b).
Treaties and Other International Instruments
American Convention on Human Rights, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123, art. 12(1), (3).
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 [European Convention on Human Rights], art. 9(1).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Can. T.S. 1976 No. 47, art. 18(1).
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948), art. 18.
Authors Cited
Dyzenhaus, David. “The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy”, in Michael Taggart, ed., The Province of Administrative Law. Oxford: Hart, 1997, 279.
Ross, Michael L. First Nations Sacred Sites in Canada’s Courts. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2005.
Ziff, Bruce. Principles of Property Law, 6th ed. Toronto: Carswell, 2014.
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Lowry, Bennett and Goepel JJ.A.), 2015 BCCA 352, 387 D.L.R. (4th) 10, 78 B.C.L.R. (5th) 297, 376 B.C.A.C. 105, 646 W.A.C. 105, 89 Admin. L.R. (5th) 63, 93 C.E.L.R. (3d) 1, [2015] 4 C.N.L.R. 199, 339 C.R.R. (2d) 183, [2016] 3 W.W.R. 423, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1682 (QL), 2015 CarswellBC 2215 (WL Can.), affirming a decision of Savage J., 2014 BCSC 568, 306 C.R.R. (2d) 211, 82 Admin. L.R. (5th) 117, 86 C.E.L.R. (3d) 202, [2014] 4 C.N.L.R. 143, [2014] B.C.J. No. 584 (QL), 2014 CarswellBC 901 (WL Can.), dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister to approve a ski resort. Appeal dismissed.
Peter Grant, Jeff Huberman, Karenna Williams and Diane Soroka, for the appellants.
Jonathan G. Penner and Erin Christie, for the respondent the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.
Gregory J. Tucker, Q.C., and Pamela E. Sheppard, for the respondent Glacier Resorts Ltd.
Mitchell R. Taylor, Q.C., and Sharlene Telles‑Langdon, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
Richard James Fyfe, for the intervener the Attorney General of Saskatchewan.
Justin Safayeni and Khalid Elgazzar, for the interveners the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario and the Kootenay Presbytery (United Church of Canada).
Albertos Polizogopoulos and Derek Ross, for the interveners the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Christian Legal Fellowship.
Written submissions only by Avnish Nanda, for the intervener the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council.
Joshua Ginsberg and Randy Christensen, for the intervener Amnesty International Canada.
Robert J. M. Janes, Q.C., and Claire Truesdale, for the intervener the Te’mexw Treaty Association.
Written submissions only by Lisa C. Fong, for the intervener the Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance.
Senwung Luk and Krista Nerland, for the intervener the Shibogama First Nations Council.
Neil Finkelstein, Brandon Kain and Bryn Gray, for the intervener the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Jessica Orkin and Adriel Weaver, for the intervener the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.
Paul Williams, for the intervener the Council of the Passamaquoddy Nation at Schoodic.
Written submissions only by John Burns and Amy Jo Scherman, for the intervener the Katzie First Nation.
Written submissions only by John W. Gailus and Christopher G. Devlin, for the interveners the West Moberly First Nations and the Prophet River First Nation.
The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and Abella, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon, Brown and Rowe JJ. was delivered by
The Chief Justice and Rowe J. —
I. Introduction
[1] The issue in this case is whether the British Columbia Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (“Minister”) erred in approving a ski resort development, despite claims by the Ktunaxa that the development would breach their constitutional right to freedom of religion and to protection of Aboriginal interests under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 .
[2] The appellants represent the Ktunaxa people. The Ktunaxa’s traditional territories are said to consist of land that straddles the international boundary between Canada and the United States, comprised of northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, northwestern Montana, southwestern Alberta and southeastern British Columbia.
[3] This case concerns a proposed development in an area the Ktunaxa call Qat’muk. This area is located in a Canadian valley in the northwestern part of the larger Ktunaxa territory, the Jumbo Valley, about 55 kilometres west of the town of Invermere, B.C.
[4] The respondent Glacier Resorts Ltd. (“Glacier Resorts”) wishes to build a year-round ski resort in Qat’muk with lifts to glacier runs and overnight accommodation for guests and staff. For more than two decades, Glacier Resorts has been negotiating with the B.C. government and stakeholders, including the Aboriginal peoples who inhabit the valley, the Ktunaxa and the Shuswap, on the terms and conditions of the development.
[5] Early on in the process, the Ktunaxa and Shuswap peoples raised concerns about the impact of the resort project. The Ktunaxa asserted that Qat’muk was a place of spiritual significance for them. Notably, it is home to an important population of grizzly bears and to Grizzly Bear Spirit, or Kⱡawⱡa Tukⱡuⱡakʔis, “a principal spirit within Ktunaxa religious beliefs and cosmology”: A.F., at para. 18.
[6] Consultation ensued, leading to significant changes to the original proposal. The Shuswap declared themselves satisfied with the changes and indicated their support for the proposal given the benefits it would bring to their people and the region. The Ktunaxa were not satisfied, but committed themselves to further consultation to remove the remaining obstacles and find mutually satisfactory accommodation. Lengthy discussions ensued, and it seemed agreement would be achieved. Then, late in the process, the Ktunaxa adopted an uncompromising position — that accommodation was impossible because a ski resort with lifts to glacier runs and permanent structures would drive Grizzly Bear Spirit from Qat’muk and irrevocably impair their religious beliefs and practices. After fruitless efforts to revive the consultation process and reach agreement, the government declared that reasonable consultation had occurred and approved the project.
[7] The appellants, the Ktunaxa Nation Council and the Chair of the Council, Kathryn Teneese, brought proceedings in judicial review before the British Columbia Supreme Court to overturn the approval by the Minister of the ski resort on two independent grounds: first, that the project would violate the Ktunaxa’s freedom of religion under s. 2 (a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ; and second, that the government breached the duty of consultation and accommodation imposed on the Crown by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 . The chambers judge dismissed the petition for judicial review, and the Court of Appeal affirmed his decision. The Ktunaxa now appeal to this Court.
[8] We would dismiss the appeal. We conclude that the claim does not engage the right to freedom of conscience and religion under s. 2 (a) of the Charter . Section 2 (a) protects the freedom of individuals and groups to hold and manifest religious beliefs: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 336. The Ktunaxa’s claim does not fall within the scope of s. 2 (a) because neither the Ktunaxa’s freedom to hold their beliefs nor their freedom to manifest those beliefs is infringed by the Minister’s decision to approve the project.
[9] We also conclude that the Minister, while bound by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to consult with the Ktunaxa in an effort to find a way to accommodate their concerns, did not act unreasonably in concluding that the requirements of s. 35 had been met and approving the project.
[10] We arrive at these conclusions cognizant of the importance of protecting Indigenous religious beliefs and practices, and the place of such protection in achieving reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous communities.
II. Facts
[11] The Jumbo Valley and Qat’muk are located in the traditional territory of the Ktunaxa. The Ktunaxa believe that Grizzly Bear Spirit inhabits Qat’muk. It is undisputed that Grizzly Bear Spirit is central to Ktunaxa religious beliefs and practices.
[12] The Jumbo Valley has long been used for heli-skiing, which involves flying skiers to the top of runs by helicopter, whence they ski to the valley floor. In the 1980s, Glacier Resorts became interested in building a permanent ski resort on a site near the north end of the valley and sought government approval of the project.
[13] The regulatory process for approval of the ski resort was a protracted matter, involving a number of cascading processes: (1) the Commercial Alpine Ski Policy (“CASP”) process to determine sole proponent status; (2) the Commission on Resources and the Environment (“CORE”) process to determine best uses of the land; (3) an environmental assessment process to resolve issues related to environmental, wildlife and cultural impact and culminating in an Environmental Assessment Certificate (“EAC”); and (4) submission of a Master Plan which, if approved, would lead to a Master Development Agreement (“MDA”) between the developer and the government. These processes involved public consultation, and the Ktunaxa participated at every stage. In the course of the various reviews, many changes were made to the original plan. The entire process, until the Minister determined consultation was adequate, took place from 1991 to 2011 — over 20 years.
[14] Until 2005, the Ktunaxa participated in the regulatory processes jointly with the Shuswap as part of the Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council (“KKTC”). However, in 2005, the Shuswap parted company with the Ktunaxa over the proposed ski resort and left the KKTC. The Shuswap support the project, believing their interests have been reasonably accommodated and that the project will be good for their community. The Ktunaxa, by contrast, say their interests cannot be accommodated and demand the project’s rejection.
[15] Adequacy of consultation is a central issue in this appeal. It is therefore necessary to set out in some detail what occurred at each step of the regulatory process.
A. Stage One: The CASP Process
[16] In 1991, Glacier Resorts filed a formal proposal to build a year-round ski resort in the upper Jumbo Valley. The government conducted public hearings on the project under the CASP, the first phase in the regulatory approval process. The predecessor of the appellants, the KKTC, participated in public hearings in the fall of 1991. After a call for proposals, Glacier Resorts was granted sole proponent status and moved up to the next step on the regulatory ladder.
B. Stage Two: The Land Use or CORE Process
[17] In 1993 and 1994, the second phase of the regulatory process began. The government conducted a site utilization review under the CORE process, with the goal of producing a new land use plan for the region focusing specifically on construction of the ski resort. The CORE process involved public hearings, which the KKTC attended as an observer. In 1994, the CORE process concluded with a report that assigned very high recreational and tourism values to the area of the proposed ski resort and recommended that the approval process for the resort include a statutory environmental assessment.
[18] In March 1995, the government released a summary of the CORE East Kootenay Land Use Plan and West Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan, identifying a ski resort development as an acceptable land use of the upper Jumbo Creek Valley. In July 1995, the government and Glacier Resorts entered into an interim agreement pursuant to the CASP, and the third step on the regulatory ladder, review under the Environmental Assessment Act, S.B.C. 1994, c. 35, began.
C. Stage Three: The Environmental Assessment Process
[19] The environmental assessment process lasted almost a decade, from 1995 to 2004. The KKTC, representing both the Ktunaxa and the Shuswap peoples, and supported by government funding, was extensively involved in the environmental assessment process for the ski resort. It was invited to participate in the technical review committee and to comment on the project report. It raised the issue of “sacred values” in the valley, which were discussed in the “First Nations Socio-Economic Assessment: Jumbo Glacier Resort Project, A Genuine Wealth Analysis”, a 2003 report of consultants retained by the B.C. government’s Environmental Assessment Office (“EAO”).
[20] In parallel, Glacier Resorts submitted the information required to complete the environmental review under the new Environmental Assessment Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 43, in a comprehensive “Project Report” in December 2003 that was accepted by the EAO in the following months.
[21] In response to this report, the KKTC submitted a document to the EAO entitled “Jumbo Glacier Resort Project: Final Comments on Measures Proposed to Address Issues Identified by the Ktunaxa Nation” stating that the Jumbo Valley area is invested with sacred values, and Glacier Resorts should be required to negotiate an Impact Management and Benefits Agreement (“IMBA”) to mitigate the potential impact of the ski resort. The KKTC submitted detailed comments, under protest, on the measures proposed by the EAO to address the concerns of the valley’s Indigenous inhabitants.
[22] On October 4, 2004, an EAC was issued, approving the development subject to numerous conditions. Among them was a requirement that Glacier Resorts negotiate with the KKTC and attempt to conclude an IMBA before the next stage of the regulatory process. The KKTC did not seek judicial review of the conditional EAC. At this point, from the government’s perspective, the consultation was proceeding smoothly toward mutually acceptable accommodation.
D. Stage Four: Development of a Resort Master Plan
[23] The regulatory process moved to the fourth stage — the development of a Master Plan and an MDA for the ski resort.
[24] Glacier Resorts submitted a revised draft Master Plan in 2005. The process of reviewing this plan took place from December 2005 to July 2007.
[25] At the outset of the review process, the government offered to enter into additional consultations with the Ktunaxa Nation Council, which was formed following the withdrawal of the Shuswap from the KKTC. In June 2006, a consultant retained by the Ktunaxa and funded by the government prepared a “Gap Analysis” to identify what the Ktunaxa considered to be the outstanding issues for discussion. The Gap Analysis highlighted the need for further information to facilitate discussion on: (1) contemporary land and resource use by the Ktunaxa of the Jumbo Valley; (2) the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures to reduce disturbance, displacement and mortality impacts to key wildlife populations from road traffic on the access road; and (3) project-induced socio-economic effects to the regional economy, including land use and cost of living that might affect Ktunaxa well-being. One of the 34 issues identified in the Gap Analysis was that the Jumbo Valley is an “area of cultural significance and has sacred values”: chambers judge’s reasons, 2014 BCSC 568, 306 C.R.R. (2d) 211, at para. 69. In this regard, the analysis stated that the “cultural impacts remain unassessed” (ibid.).
[26] The Ktunaxa met with the Minister and they agreed on further consultation built around the Gap Analysis. As part of this process, the cultural significance/sacred values issue was discussed at the “Land Issues” workshop held on October 12 and 13, 2006 in Cranbrook, B.C. Following the workshop, the Ktunaxa consultant circulated a document entitled “Working Outline: Ktunaxa-British Columbia Accommodation”, which identified the cultural and sacred significance of the valley as an issue to be addressed, and suggested a conceptual framework for accommodating the Ktunaxa land use concerns through: (a) a fee simple land transfer to the Ktunaxa; (b) the establishment of a land reserve; and (c) the establishment of a conservancy area in proximity to the ski-run site. The land use issues workshop was followed by workshops in November and December 2006 and January 2007. These addressed grizzly bear, other wildlife, and residual issues.
[27] In November 2006, prospects for agreement on accommodation looked bright. The Minister received a copy of a letter where the Ktunaxa informed Glacier Resorts that they had made “considerable progress in setting up a process for the negotiation of an [IMBA]”: chambers judge’s reasons, at para. 76. Only two issues appeared to stand in the way of final agreement — “funding” and “the outstanding issue of unpaid monies” (ibid.). In April 2007, Glacier Resorts wrote the Minister that it believed it had reached an “agreement in principle” with the Ktunaxa (ibid.). On July 12, the Minister approved a Master Plan, which outlined the nature, scope and pace of the proposed development, identified land tenure requirements, and incorporated recommendations arising from consultation with Glacier Resorts, the public and First Nations and from the environmental review process.
[28] The Minister advised the Ktunaxa that Master Plan approval did not preclude additional mitigation measures based on ongoing consultation. In the months following the approval, the discussion turned to economic issues. The Minister made an accommodation proposal to the Ktunaxa in December 2007, which included $650,000 in economic benefits to be taken in cash or Crown land, plus nine non-financial accommodations. In February 2008, the Ktunaxa rejected the proposed accommodation on the basis that (1) the financial component was “grossly insufficient” and (2) it was inappropriate for the Minister to provide identical financial accommodation to the Shuswap, given the Ktunaxa’s “far greater history in the Jumbo area”: chambers judge’s reasons, at para. 82. The rejection letter did not mention the sacred nature of the Jumbo Valley or Grizzly Bear Spirit.
[29] The Minister came back in September 2008 with a second offer of accommodation to the Ktunaxa, in the form of revenue sharing in an Economic and Community Development Agreement. The Ktunaxa rejected this proposal in December. While the negotiations suggested that an agreement could be reached regarding the construction of the ski resort project, the Ktunaxa rejected this proposal on the basis that the Jumbo Valley is a “place unique and sacred” to them: chambers judge’s reasons, at para. 83. Again, there was no special mention of Grizzly Bear Spirit.
[30] Discussions continued. In February 2009, the Ktunaxa gave formal notice to the Minister that they wished to enter into a process to negotiate an accommodation and benefits agreement. In April, the Minister accepted and offered additional capacity funding for the process. In May, the Ktunaxa provided the Minister with a list of outstanding issues and possible accommodation measures to be discussed, including land transfers, land reserves, a wildlife conservancy, development-free buffer zones beside the access road, access rights in the controlled recreation area, a stewardship framework for economic compensation, revenue sharing, ongoing supervision of environmental commitments, and other measures. The Ktunaxa did not place the sacred nature of the Jumbo Valley on the list of outstanding issues.
[31] On June 3, 2009, the Minister advised the Ktunaxa that, in his opinion, a reasonable consultation process had occurred and that most of the outstan