Court Challenges to National Energy Board or Governor in Council Decisions
The NEB operates within a system of checks and balances. Our decisions are subject to independent and impartial judicial oversight, generally through the Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada, and the Board is bound to act in accordance with the court’s decisions.
As part of our commitment to transparency, we share information about challenges to the NEB’s decisions and recommendations to the Governor in Council in the database below. The purpose is to provide Canadians with up-to-date information about the status of these legal challenges, regardless of the outcome.
The following information includes the status of litigation, appeals, and judicial reviews related to NEB or Governor in Council decisions. Where possible, the database provides a link to an external third-party controlled website, such as the Court database or an online version of the decision. It does not include civil claims or judicial reviews of administrative decisions. The database is searchable by project name, parties or filing date.
|Project Name||Description of Challenge||Parties||Court Filing Date||Court and Docket Number||Summary|
|Trans Mountain Detailed Route Hearing – City of Burnaby – Segment 7 (MH-033-2017) [Folder 3324466]||Application to judicially review the Board’s decision [Filing A91505] dated 26 April 2018 approving the route.||City of Burnaby v. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC||2018-05-24||Federal Court of Appeal
|The applicant applied to judicially review the Board’s decision to approve the route and construction methods. Issues raised include weighing of evidence and reasonableness of findings and determinations.|
|Quebec-New Hampshire Interconnection
|Application to judicially review the Board’s decision to issue Permit EP-303 and grant a variance to Certificate EC-III-021, approving the Project [Filing A90412]||Conseil des Innus de Pessamit v. National Energy Board, Attorney General of Canada, Hydro-Quebec||2018-04-04||Federal Court of Appeal
|The applicant applied to judicially review the Board’s decision to approve the Project. Issues raised include the duty to consult and the assessment of environmental effects of exporting electricity.|
|TCPL Mainline operations and maintenance activity||Statement of Claim||Aroland First Nation and Ginoogaming First Nation v. National Energy Board, TransCanada PipeLines Limited and Attorney General of Canada||2017-01-05||Ont. Ct of Justice
|The applicants seek, among other things, injunctive and declaratory relief and damages for alleged breach of constitutional obligations to consult and accommodate related to TCPL’s plans to conduct integrity digs and other work in NW Ontario.
The Ontario Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment motion on 30 July 2018. The Court concluded that the motion cannot be fairly and justly decided using the summary judgment process and would require a full trial.
- Date modified: