Alberta Court of Appeal lets Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation intervene in appeal on planned coal mine

The Alberta Court of Appeal has granted Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation’s request to intervene in an appeal arising from Summit Coal Inc’s application asking the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to approve its Mine 14 coal project near Grande Cache. 

In Alberta Wilderness Association v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2026 ABCA 82, an AER hearing panel invited interested parties to engage in a public hearing. Four Indigenous groups responded and received full participation rights. They later said they no longer opposed the coal mine project. 

The appellants – the Alberta Wilderness Association and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Northern Alberta – had full participation rights and continued to object to the respondent Summit Coal’s application. The panel denied Summit Coal’s request to cancel the hearing. 

The AER’s chief executive officer reconsidered the panel’s decision under s. 42 of Alberta’s Responsible Energy Development Act, 2012 (REDA), cancelled the hearing and the other remaining procedural steps, and transferred the record to the regulatory applications branch for a decision. 

Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation applied for permission to intervene in the appeal. It alleged inherent, Aboriginal, and treaty rights under Treaty 8 and s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. It argued that the project was on or near lands that its people have traditionally used for cultural, fishing, hunting, and trapping activities. 

The applicant wanted to make submissions on two issues that the parties had not raised: 

• the critical role of the AER’s hearing processes for identifying and mitigating the impacts of energy resource development on Indigenous rights 
• the negative consequences of the AER’s and Summit Coal’s proposed interpretation of s. 42 of the REDA on the independence of the AER’s hearing commissioners and the regulator’s ability to meet its constitutional obligations to Indigenous people while upholding the Crown’s honour 

Summit Coal countered that allowing the applicant to intervene would improperly expand the issues beyond the narrow question of whether the CEO had the statutory authority to reconsider a panel decision and cancel a hearing when no parties opposed the project or experienced direct and adverse impacts because of it. 

Intervention granted

The Court of Appeal of Alberta gave the applicant permission to intervene, subject to the following conditions, among others: 

• The applicant’s submissions could address only the first question included in the order granting permission to appeal 
• It should not adduce evidence or supplement the record 

The appeal court determined that the applicant’s affidavits showed enough basis to find that it could bring a unique perspective to the assessment and that the court’s interpretation of s. 42 of REDA would impact it. 

The appeal court acknowledged the risk that the intervention could expand the issues. However, the appeal court held that the conditions it imposed could mitigate that risk. Lastly, the appeal court did not permit the applicant to make oral submissions during the appeal hearing.