Legal Challenges To Site C Dismissed

In the past few months, several applications for judicial review relating to BC Hydro's Site C Project (the "Project") have been dismissed. These legal challenges to the Project followed the approval of its environmental assessment at both the provincial and federal levels. By way of background, the environmental assessment with respect to the Project proceeded by way of a Joint Review Panel representing both the provincial Environmental Assessment Office and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The Joint Review Panel issued a report (the "Report") setting out findings and recommendations relating to the Project, upon which both the provincial ministers responsible for the environmental assessment (the "Ministers") and the federal Governor in Council (the "GIC") were to make decisions respecting the Project. In October 2014, both the provincial Ministers and the federal GIC approved the Project. Aboriginal and affected landowners challenged this decision on several grounds in both Federal Court and the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

PEACE VALLEY LANDOWNER ASSOCIATION V. BRITISH COLUMBIA (ENVIRONMENT), 2015 BCSC 1129

In this case, landowners affected by Site C challenged the environmental assessment certificate issued by the provincial Ministers on the grounds that the Minsters failed to consider or implement certain recommendations (the "Recommendations") made in the Joint Review Panel's Report. In particular, the landowners argued that the Ministers failed to consider the Report's recommendations that:

(a) the issues of estimated project cost and revenue requirement be referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission (the "BCUC") for determination;

(b) the issues of long-term pricing and load forecasts be referred to the BCUC;

(c) BC Hydro undertake further research on issues relating to alternative energy sources; and

(d) the issues of load forecast and demand side management be referred to the BCUC.

Contrary to these Recommendations, the Ministers issued an environmental assessment certificate for the Project without referring any issues to the BCUC or requiring any further study. The landowners argued that the Ministers erred in failing to implement these Recommendations as conditions attached to approval of the Project.

The Court rejected arguments put forward by the landowners that the Ministers had "ignored" the Recommendations. The Court noted that the Ministers explicitly stated that they had considered all of the...