Tasekos Decision to Apply for a Judicial Review May Backfire... princegeorgecitizen/article/20131204/PRINCEGEORGE0101/312049987/-1/princegeorge07/miner-move-may-backfire-experts Prince George Citizen Published December 4, 2013 LOCAL NEWS Miner move may backfire: experts Peter JAMES Citizen staff [email protected] Tasekos decision to apply for a judicial review of the environmental assessment for its proposed New Prosperity mine might not be looked upon favourably, according to two Canadian environmental law experts. Dalhousie University professor Meinhard Doelle said the companys pronouncement that it will only seek judicial relief if the federal cabinet doesnt rule in favour of the copper and gold mine in the Cariboo could be problematic from the governments point of view. Im not sure its common to publicly state that you will withdraw if the government approves your project, he said. Its being very clear that youre using the threat of litigation as a way to try to influence government decision-making. Meanwhile, Canadian Environmental Law Association lawyer Joe Castrilli said Tasekos plan to launch legal action on the recommendations in the report but before Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq makes a decision could be seen by the courts as acting too soon, before the process is complete. Judges usually only like to deal with issues once, he said. This could be a premature application. Castrilli said if Aglukkaq and the federal cabinet deny Taseko the certificate to proceed based on evidence the company believes is incorrect, Taseko would have to file a second application for a judicial review and then ask the court to link the two applications. Taseko filed the application with the federal court on Nov. 29 in order to meet legal requirements that judicial appeal must be requested within 30 days of a panel issuing a decision. Taseko vice-president of corporate affairs Brian Battison said the decision was made to launch the process now because they had not heard an acknowledgment from either Aglukkaq or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) that its concerns will be considered when the final decision is made some time in the next three months. On Oct. 31 a three-member CEAA panel released a report that concluded Tasekos plan for an open pit mine near Fish Lake, south of Williams Lake, could have significant adverse environmental affects on fish and fish habitat as well as traditional aboriginal activities. The findings in the report are not binding and are treated as recommendations to Aglukkaq and the rest of cabinet. In the days after the report was made public, an engineering firm hired by Taseko found what it believes is an error in the evidence presented by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). According to Taseko, a model of seepage rates submitted by NRCan was based on an incorrect design of the mine. Taseko believes if the correct mine design was used, there would be no significant adverse environmental affects. Doelle, the director of the Marine and Environmental Law Institute at Dalhousie, said the facts in the case paint an interesting scenario. He said now that the application has been made the key piece of information to come next will be NRCans response. If their position is no, we fully understood the design of the tailings pond and our submissions were based on our correct understanding, I couldnt imagine the court would do very much - if [NRCan] had a basis for saying that, he said. However, if the federal government department agrees with Taseko that a mistake has been made, the Doelle expects interveners will ask for standing to argue that significant adverse effects could be present with or without the error. Interveners arent going to be happy just to ignore those conclusions or by disregarding those conclusions youre assuming that those effects are not significant, he said. Theres presumably an open question about whether or not there would have been a significance finding even if the mistake hadnt been made. It would then be up to the federal court to weigh the arguments and decide what type of judicial remedy is appropriate. Taseko now has 60 days to provide affidavits supporting the argument in its application. The federal government will then have more time to respond to those arguments. Castrilli said interveners likely wont ask for standing in the process until both sides have put their arguments in writing in order to see exactly whats at stake. Once everyone has filed their written submissions to the court, there could be an opportunity to cross-examine those who have submitted sworn affidavits. Unlike a regular trial, the cross-examination would take place by lawyers outside of a court room and the transcript would be entered in as evidence for the judge. Both Doelle and Castrilli agreed that Tasekos estimate that the process could take anywhere for a year to 18 months to complete is accurate. However that timeline could be extended if a federal court decision was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court.
Posted on: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 01:30:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015