Cold Lake First Nations v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board) País/Territorio Canadá Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Oct 18, 2012 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Court of Appeal of Alberta Sede de la corte Edmonton Juez Berger, R. Número de referencia 2012 ABCA 304 Idioma Inglés Materia Cuestiones jurídicas, Recursos minerales Palabra clave Minería Derecho constitutional Derechos tradicionales/derechos consuetudinarios Pueblos indígenas Resumen Osum Oil Sands Corporation (Osum) applied to theAlberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB)for approval of a bitumen recovery scheme near Cold Lake, Alberta. The Cold Lake First Nation (CLFN) objected to Osums application and filed a Notice of Question of Constitutional Law, asking the ERCB to determine whether Alberta had discharged its duty to consult and accommodate the CLFN with respect to Osums project. The CLFN took the position that Alberta had not met its duty and, therefore, the project was not in the public interest. The ERCB decided that, while it has the power to decide constitutional questions, it does not have the jurisdiction to answer every constitutional question posed to it. In this case a member of industry, and not the Crown, was the applicant. The ERCB concluded that its mandate to review Crown consultation with respect to Aboriginal and treaty rights does not extend to circumstances where the proponent is not the Crown or an agent of the Crown. The following day, the CLFN reached an agreement with Osum and withdrew its objection to Osums project. Despite reaching an agreement with Osum, the CLFN sought leave to appeal the ERCBs decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal. While the Court agreed that the question of whether the Crown has met its duty to consult was clearly an issue in the public interest, it decided that it wouldnt exercise its discretion to answer the CLFNs question. The Court noted that consultation between the CLFN and other First Nations and government is ongoing. Given this, the Court felt that there would likely be a matter that engages the same question in the near future. To emphasize this point, the Court appended to its decision similar notices of constitutional questions from the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Fort McMurray First Nation to be heard by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agencys and ERCBs Joint Review Panel in Shells Jackpine mine expansion on October 23, 2012. The Court further highlighted that it is generally hesitant to decide important constitutional questions in a factual vacuum, specifically noting that jurisdictional questions cannot always be divorced from the underlying factual matrix. Based on this concern and others, the Court declined to grant leave. Texto completo COU-159834.pdf