Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on whether the federal agency used the correct statutory framework (2012 Act vs. 2019 Act) to assess a project amendment.

• Applicants alleged the Agency ignored socio-economic and gender-based violence risks tied to the Floatel housing plan.

• The court evaluated whether the Impact Assessment Agency had a legal duty to reassess the project under the more expansive 2019 Act.

• A key issue was whether the decision unreasonably infringed Charter rights or violated international human rights obligations.

• The procedural fairness argument was raised based on the absence of a public comment period for the Agency’s analysis report.

• Court reviewed whether the Agency’s decision not to recommend changes was amenable to judicial review despite being framed as a recommendation.

Facts and outcome of the case

The background and project proposal

This case involved judicial reviews brought by two applicant groups—Citizens for My Sea to Sky (an environmental organization) and two members of the Squamish Nation, Roberta Jacqueline Williams and Anneka Watt—against the Government of Canada and Woodfibre LNG, a private company proposing to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility on Howe Sound, near Squamish, British Columbia. Originally approved in 2016 under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (the 2012 Act), the project later proposed a material amendment: housing workers on a repurposed cruise ship called a “Floatel.” This change raised concerns about environmental and social impacts, particularly gender-based violence.

Federal and provincial approval process

Although the federal Impact Assessment Agency of Canada found that the Floatel did not warrant a reassessment or change in federal environmental conditions, the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office amended its provincial certificate to include gender and cultural safety conditions. These conditions prohibited workers from accessing the community of Squamish for non-work-related activities and mandated a comprehensive gender and cultural safety plan.

Applicants’ legal challenges

The applicants claimed that the Agency unreasonably limited its assessment to the 2012 Act, rather than using the broader 2019 Impact Assessment Act, which explicitly includes social and health impacts to Indigenous peoples. They argued that the Agency ignored Charter rights, failed to consider Canada’s international human rights obligations, and breached procedural fairness by not offering a public comment period before finalizing its Analysis Report.

The court’s reasoning

Justice Grammond held that it was reasonable for the Agency to assess the Floatel proposal under the legislative framework originally used for the project—the 2012 Act. He found that this decision aligned with transitional provisions in the 2019 Act and reflected Parliament’s intent to provide regulatory predictability. The court further found that the Agency adequately considered Charter values, including gender-based violence risks, through reliance on the provincial measures already in place. Additionally, the court dismissed the procedural fairness argument, finding no statutory or legitimate expectation requiring a public comment period when no amendment to the federal conditions was proposed.

Final decision and result

The Federal Court dismissed both applications for judicial review. It ruled that the Agency’s decision, although framed as a recommendation, was effectively final and reviewable. Nonetheless, the decision was found to be reasonable on all grounds. The court did not award costs to the successful parties, recognizing the applicants’ public interest motives. Thus, the respondents, including the federal government and Woodfibre LNG, prevailed.