Taseko Mines Limited v. Canada (Environment)

Taseko Mines Limited v. Canada (Environment)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2015-11-16
Neutral citation
2015 FCA 254
File numbers
A-225-14
Decision Content
Date: 20151116
Docket: A-225-14
Citation: 2015 FCA 254
CORAM:
NADON J.A.
SCOTT J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
BETWEEN:
TASEKO MINES LIMITED
Appellant
and
THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and THE FEDERAL REVIEW PANEL and THE TSILHQOT'IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT and JOEY ALPHONSE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot'in Nation
Respondents
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 16, 2015.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 16, 2015.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
NADON J.A.
Date: 20151116
Docket: A-225-14
Citation: 2015 FCA 254
CORAM:
NADON J.A.
SCOTT J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
BETWEEN:
TASEKO MINES LIMITED
Appellant
and
THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and THE FEDERAL REVIEW PANEL and THE TSILHQOT'IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT and JOEY ALPHONSE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot'in Nation
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 16, 2015).
NADON J.A.
[1] Although we cannot endorse all of Harrington J.’s reasoning and in particular his comments at paragraph 21 of his reasons where he appears to adopt a test which goes to the merits of the case, we are satisfied that he reached the proper result in refusing to make the order of production sought by the Appellant.
[2] More particularly we are of the view that, in the words of Gonthier J. in Commission des affaires sociales v. Noémic Tremblay and Minister of Manpower and Income Security, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 952 at p. 966, there are no “valid reasons for believing that the process followed did not comply with the rules of natural justice”.
[3] In other words, the fact that the Secretariat personnel spent approximately 3000 hours working on the Review Panel’s report does not constitute, per se, a sufficient basis to conclude to the existence of valid or good grounds justifying the lifting of the veil of secrecy. This is not, in our respectful opinion, one of those exceptional cases where, in the view of the Supreme Court of Canada, it would be proper to allow the production of documents which would normally fall under the veil of the secrecy of deliberations.
[4] The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs.
"M. Nadon"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Docket:
A-225-14
(APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARRINGTON, DATED APRIL 17, 2014, DOCKET NO. T-1977-13)
STYLE OF CAUSE:
TASEKO MINES LIMITED v. THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND THE FEDERAL REVIEW PANEL AND THE TSILHQOT'IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND JOEY ALPHONSE, ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE TSILHQOT'IN NATION
PLACE OF HEARING:
Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING:
November 16, 2015
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
NADON J.A.
SCOTT J.A.
RENNIE J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:
NADON J.A.
APPEARANCES:
K. Michael Stephens
K. Webber
For The Appellant
Lorne Lachance
Michele Charles
For The Respondents
THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
David Bursey
For The Respondent
THE FEDERAL REVIEW PANEL
[BLANK]
For The Respondents
THE TSILHQOT'IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND JOEY ALPHONSE ET AL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Hunter Litigation Chambers
Barristers & Solicitors
Vancouver, British Columbia
For The Appellant
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
For The Respondents
THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Bennett Jones LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
Vancouver, British Columbia
For The Respondent
THE FEDERAL REVIEW PANEL
Jay Nelson Law
Barrister & Solicitor
Victoria, British Columbia
For The Respondents
THE TSILHQOT'IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND JOEY ALPHONSE ET AL