Compare this quick ruling (just one month, even in the Time of Corona) with Supreme Court of Canada taking a year to rule in Ernst vs AER on a much more simple matter. I suppose the nine judges had to work hard figuring out how to best piss on our civil Charter rights while protecting the law violating AER, and intentionally lie in their ruling to defame me and my case.
Sipekne’katik v. Alton Natural Gas Storage LP March 24, 2020, Nova Scotia Supreme Court
From the ruling, March 24, 2020:
| Judge: | The Honourable Justice Frank C. Edwards |
| Heard: | February 18 and 19, 2020, in Halifax, Nova Scotia |
| Subject: | Constitution Act – s. 35 Nova Scotia Environment Act – s. 138 |
| Facts: | The Appellant had appealed the April 8, 2019 Decision of the NS Minister of the Environment on the basis of inadequate Crown consultation with the Sipekne’katik Band regarding the Alton Natural Gas Storage Project. |
| Issue: | Whether the Minister made a palpable and overriding error when she concluded that the level of consultation was “appropriate to the circumstances and to the Aboriginal and treaty rights asserted.” |
| Result: | I allowed the appeal and reversed the Minister’s decision. The Minister’s decision was not supported by the evidence. While there had been extensive consultations regarding the potential environmental impacts of the Project, the core issue of Aboriginal title and treaty rights was never specifically engaged. The Minister therefore committed palpable and overriding error when she concluded that the level of consultation was appropriate. I also found that, but for her misapprehension of the evidence, the Minister would have concluded otherwise. I directed the parties to resume consultations for a period of 120 days or for such time as the parties mutually agree. In the present circumstances, it is not possible to designate a start date for the resumption of consultation. That will have to await a declaration by the Province’s Chief Medical Officer of Health that the COVID 19 crisis is over. The parties are free to agree on an alternative remote arrangement. I allowed the appeal and reversed the Minister’s decision. The Minister’s decision was not supported by the evidence. While there had been extensive consultations regarding the potential environmental impacts of the Project, the core issue of Aboriginal title and treaty rights was never specifically engaged. The Minister therefore committed palpable and overriding error when she concluded that the level of consultation was appropriate. I also found that, but for her misapprehension of the evidence, the Minister would have concluded otherwise. I directed the parties to resume consultations for a period of 120 days or for such time as the parties mutually agree. In the present circumstances, it is not possible to designate a start date for the resumption of consultation. That will have to await a declaration by the Province’s Chief Medical Officer of Health that the COVID 19 crisis is over. The parties are free to agree on an alternative remote arrangement. |