Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• PRPA's application to strike Metlakatla's claim on jurisdictional grounds was largely dismissed, affirming the BC Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the matter.

• The central question was whether the Federal Court holds exclusive jurisdiction under s.18 of the Federal Courts Act, which the Court found inapplicable to most claims.

• Allegations that PRPA failed to disclose the "Export Monopoly" arrangement during consultations support the breach of duty to consult and negligent misrepresentation claims.

• The breach of fiduciary duty claim was upheld based on pleadings that PRPA exercises discretionary control over Metlakatla's aboriginal interests.

• One relief sought—an order requiring PRPA to engage in future consultations—was struck as constituting mandamus falling within Federal Court's exclusive jurisdiction.

• The essential character of Metlakatla's claim was determined to be an action for damages, not a collateral attack on Crown Approval.

Background and parties involved

Metlakatla First Nation is a community of Aboriginal people and recognized as a band under the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5. Metlakatla's members are "Aboriginal peoples" within the meaning of s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Metlakatla holds unextinguished aboriginal rights, including title, within its traditional territory which includes the lands and waters within the Port of Prince Rupert. Prince Rupert Port Authority is a federal port authority established by Letters Patent issued under federal legislation. It operates and manages port facilities on lands and navigable waters within the Port of Prince Rupert. The dispute arose from a project for the construction and operation of a bulk liquids storage facility and jetty on Ridley Island in the Port of Prince Rupert, which received Crown Approval in November 2022.

The Export Monopoly and consultation process

In 2015, PRPA entered into a development agreement with Vopak Development Canada Inc. in respect of the Project. PRPA granted Vopak exclusive rights within the Port of Prince Rupert to receive, store, and load certain products for export including liquefied petroleum gas and other products—referred to as the "Export Monopoly." Beginning in 2018, PRPA purported to consult Metlakatla about the Project. The parties engaged in Project-related consultations which culminated in Metlakatla completing a mutual benefits agreement with Vopak in April 2023. Metlakatla alleges that PRPA failed to consult with Metlakatla about the Export Monopoly and did not disclose to Metlakatla that it had granted the Export Monopoly before Metlakatla completed the benefits agreement with Vopak. Consequently, PRPA failed to take any steps to assess how the Export Monopoly would potentially affect Metlakatla's aboriginal interests.

Metlakatla's economic interests and alleged harm

Metlakatla holds an ownership interest in Trigon Pacific Terminals Limited, which operates a bulk commodities marine terminal on Ridley Island. Trigon has a commercial interest in expanding its operations on Ridley Island to receive, handle, store and load liquified petroleum gas and other bulk liquids. In September 2023, Trigon requested, but PRPA refused, to allow Trigon to receive, handle, store, and load liquefied petroleum gas from its facility on Ridley Island. Metlakatla contends that by granting the Export Monopoly, PRPA has lessened the value of Metlakatla's ownership interest in Trigon. The Amended Claim also alleges the Export Monopoly limits Metlakatla's use of its traditional territory within the Port of Prince Rupert and prevents Metlakatla from entering into agreements with other proponents for the range of products that are the subject of the Export Monopoly. Through the Export Monopoly, PRPA has diminished the economic value of Metlakatla's Aboriginal rights.

PRPA's jurisdictional challenge

On August 20, 2024, PRPA filed the present application to strike the Claim, arguing that pursuant to the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, the Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to grant the declaratory and prerogative relief sought by the plaintiff. PRPA contended that in substance the plaintiff's claims are a collateral attack on the Crown Approval. The parties agree that based on the facts pleaded in the Amended Claim, PRPA is a "federal board, commission or other tribunal" as defined in s. 2 of the Federal Courts Act. PRPA contended that the declaratory relief sought against PRPA can only be obtained on an application for judicial review under s.18.1 of the Federal Courts Act.

The court's analysis of jurisdiction

Justice Laurie applied principles from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. TeleZone Inc., 2010 SCC 62, which concluded that provincial superior courts had jurisdiction to determine private law claims for damages in respect of public decisions or orders where the claim does not challenge the legal force and effect of the decision or order. The Court noted that on August 29, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended notice of civil claim. The Amended Claim no longer sought to quash, set aside or suspend the Crown Approval. The Court found that the essential character of Metlakatla's claim is an action for damages. The Amended Claim does not seek to invalidate or avoid the consequences of the Crown Approval. It pleads the implications of PRPA's alleged conduct in not disclosing the existence of the Export Monopoly to Metlakatla and it seeks compensation for alleged losses incurred as a result. The Court noted that PRPA's argument fails to distinguish between a challenge to the lawfulness of a government decision, and a challenge to its legal force and effect, in the manner discussed by Fenlon J.A. in Myers v. Canada, 2022 BCCA 160.

Evaluation of Metlakatla's causes of action

The Court examined each of Metlakatla's four causes of action: breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to consult, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. For breach of fiduciary duty, the Court found the Amended Claim sufficiently pleads that PRPA exercises discretionary control over a specific and cognizable interest being Metlakatla's unextinguished claim to aboriginal rights and title within its traditional territory; that Metlakatla's aboriginal interests stood to be adversely affected by PRPA's exercise of discretion and control over lands and waters within Metlakatla's traditional territory; and that Metlakatla was subject to a peculiar vulnerability to the exercise of PRPA's discretion or power. Regarding breach of duty to consult, the Amended Claim pleads that beginning in 2018, PRPA purported to consult with Metlakatla regarding the Project, and that the consultation by PRPA was inadequate and/or defective because PRPA did not inform Metlakatla that it had granted the Export Monopoly. The negligent misrepresentation claim was upheld despite PRPA's argument that it constituted an improper shareholder complaint, with the Court finding that fundamentally, Metlakatla's claim alleges that PRPA failed to disclose a material fact regarding an agreement that was going to impact the way that lands within Metlakatla's traditional territory were going to be administered, resulting in economic loss to Metlakatla including a diminishment of the economic value of its aboriginal rights. Reading the pleadings as a whole, the Court found the plaintiff has pleaded sufficient material facts to support a cause of action for unjust enrichment.

Ruling and outcome

The Honourable Justice Laurie largely dismissed PRPA's application. The sole exception was Part 2, para. 5 of the Amended Claim, which sought an order requiring PRPA to forthwith engage in consultations with Metlakatla to assess, determine, and develop accommodation measures in relation to the potential impacts arising from the Crown Approval. As Justice Fenlon (then of this Court) held in Matsqui First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 492, this is an order for mandamus directing the PRPA to take future action which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The Court ruled that PRPA may file and serve a response to the Amended Claim within 21 days following final determination of this application, including appeals. No specific monetary award was determined at this procedural stage, as the decision addressed only the preliminary jurisdictional question rather than the merits of Metlakatla's substantive claims for damages.