Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

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

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.