Legal Pleadings | ilclegalpleadings.usask.ca

: Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R.; Since 1994, the proponent has sought permission from the British Columbia government to reopen an old mine. During the environmental assessment process under the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.119, access to the mine emerged as a point of contention. The members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (TRTFN), who participated in the assessment, objected to the proponent's plan to build a road through their traditional territory. However, after a lengthy process, approval was granted in 1998. In 1999 the TRTFN brought a petition to quash the Ministers' decision to issue the Project Approval Certificate on administrative law grounds and on grounds based on its Aboriginal rights and title. The chambers judge set aside the decision, and the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ([2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 312) dismissed the Province's appeal, finding that the Province had failed to meet its duty to consult with and accommodate the TRTFN. This is the Intervener Factum of the Attorney General of Alberta. Note: The summary has been extracted from Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 366.

: Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R.; Since 1994, the proponent has sought permission from the British Columbia government to reopen an old mine. During the environmental assessment process under the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.119, access to the mine emerged as a point of contention. The members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (TRTFN), who participated in the assessment, objected to the proponent's plan to build a road through their traditional territory. However, after a lengthy process, approval was granted in 1998. In 1999 the TRTFN brought a petition to quash the Ministers' decision to issue the Project Approval Certificate on administrative law grounds and on grounds based on its Aboriginal rights and title. The chambers judge set aside the decision, and the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ([2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 312) dismissed the Province's appeal, finding that the Province had failed to meet its duty to consult with and accommodate the TRTFN. This is the Intervener Factum of the Appellant: Norm Ringstad et al. Note: The summary has been extracted from Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 366.

: Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R.; Since 1994, the proponent has sought permission from the British Columbia government to reopen an old mine. During the environmental assessment process under the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.119, access to the mine emerged as a point of contention. The members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (TRTFN), who participated in the assessment, objected to the proponent's plan to build a road through their traditional territory. However, after a lengthy process, approval was granted in 1998. In 1999 the TRTFN brought a petition to quash the Ministers' decision to issue the Project Approval Certificate on administrative law grounds and on grounds based on its Aboriginal rights and title. The chambers judge set aside the decision, and the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ([2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 312) dismissed the Province's appeal, finding that the Province had failed to meet its duty to consult with and accommodate the TRTFN. This is the Intervener Factum of the Business Council of British Columbia. Note: The summary has been extracted from Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 366.

: Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R.; Since 1994, the proponent has sought permission from the British Columbia government to reopen an old mine. During the environmental assessment process under the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.119, access to the mine emerged as a point of contention. The members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (TRTFN), who participated in the assessment, objected to the proponent's plan to build a road through their traditional territory. However, after a lengthy process, approval was granted in 1998. In 1999 the TRTFN brought a petition to quash the Ministers' decision to issue the Project Approval Certificate on administrative law grounds and on grounds based on its Aboriginal rights and title. The chambers judge set aside the decision, and the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ([2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 312) dismissed the Province's appeal, finding that the Province had failed to meet its duty to consult with and accommodate the TRTFN. This is the Intervener Factum of the Doig River First Nation. Note: The summary has been extracted from Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 366.

: Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R.; Since 1994, the proponent has sought permission from the British Columbia government to reopen an old mine. During the environmental assessment process under the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.119, access to the mine emerged as a point of contention. The members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (TRTFN), who participated in the assessment, objected to the proponent's plan to build a road through their traditional territory. However, after a lengthy process, approval was granted in 1998. In 1999 the TRTFN brought a petition to quash the Ministers' decision to issue the Project Approval Certificate on administrative law grounds and on grounds based on its Aboriginal rights and title. The chambers judge set aside the decision, and the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ([2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 312) dismissed the Province's appeal, finding that the Province had failed to meet its duty to consult with and accommodate the TRTFN. This is the Intervener Factum of the First Nations Summit. Note: The summary has been extracted from Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 366.

: Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R.; Since 1994, the proponent has sought permission from the British Columbia government to reopen an old mine. During the environmental assessment process under the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.119, access to the mine emerged as a point of contention. The members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (TRTFN), who participated in the assessment, objected to the proponent's plan to build a road through their traditional territory. However, after a lengthy process, approval was granted in 1998. In 1999 the TRTFN brought a petition to quash the Ministers' decision to issue the Project Approval Certificate on administrative law grounds and on grounds based on its Aboriginal rights and title. The chambers judge set aside the decision, and the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ([2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 312) dismissed the Province's appeal, finding that the Province had failed to meet its duty to consult with and accommodate the TRTFN. This is the Intervener Factum of the Attorney General of Quebec in French. Note: The summary has been extracted from Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 366.

: Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R.; Since 1994, the proponent has sought permission from the British Columbia government to reopen an old mine. During the environmental assessment process under the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.119, access to the mine emerged as a point of contention. The members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (TRTFN), who participated in the assessment, objected to the proponent's plan to build a road through their traditional territory. However, after a lengthy process, approval was granted in 1998. In 1999 the TRTFN brought a petition to quash the Ministers' decision to issue the Project Approval Certificate on administrative law grounds and on grounds based on its Aboriginal rights and title. The chambers judge set aside the decision, and the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ([2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 312) dismissed the Province's appeal, finding that the Province had failed to meet its duty to consult with and accommodate the TRTFN. This is the Respondent Factum of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation. Note: The summary has been extracted from Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 366.

: Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R.; ince 1994, the proponent has sought permission from the British Columbia government to reopen an old mine. During the environmental assessment process under the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.119, access to the mine emerged as a point of contention. The members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (TRTFN), who participated in the assessment, objected to the proponent's plan to build a road through their traditional territory. However, after a lengthy process, approval was granted in 1998. In 1999 the TRTFN brought a petition to quash the Ministers' decision to issue the Project Approval Certificate on administrative law grounds and on grounds based on its Aboriginal rights and title. The chambers judge set aside the decision, and the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ([2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 312) dismissed the Province's appeal, finding that the Province had failed to meet its duty to consult with and accommodate the TRTFN. This is the Factum of the Appellant Redfern Resources Ltd.. Note: The summary has been extracted from Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 366.

: Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R.; Since 1994, the proponent has sought permission from the British Columbia government to reopen an old mine. During the environmental assessment process under the Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.119, access to the mine emerged as a point of contention. The members of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (TRTFN), who participated in the assessment, objected to the proponent's plan to build a road through their traditional territory. However, after a lengthy process, approval was granted in 1998. In 1999 the TRTFN brought a petition to quash the Ministers' decision to issue the Project Approval Certificate on administrative law grounds and on grounds based on its Aboriginal rights and title. The chambers judge set aside the decision, and the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal ([2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 312) dismissed the Province's appeal, finding that the Province had failed to meet its duty to consult with and accommodate the TRTFN. This is the Intervener Factum of the Intervener The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. Note: The summary has been extracted from Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 366.

: Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia, [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 366 (S.C.C.); At issue is what duties are to the Taku River Tlingit First Nation regarding the re-opening of a mine and what application does Administrative law have in these circumstances?

: Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia, [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 366 (S.C.C.); At issue is what duties are to the Taku River Tlingit First Nation regarding the re-opening of a mine and what application does Administrative law have in these circumstances?

: The Dene/Metis Land Claim and the Crown as Fiduciary; Paper by Connie Den Van Hollander that discusses whether a surrender clause in a land negotiation is a breach of the Crown\\'s fiduciary duty.