Posts Tagged ‘standing’

Nesting dolls of “directly affected” in federal law under judicial review

October 18th, 2013 by Laura Bowman

Recently, the Federal Court of Appeal released a decision on a procedural issue in Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v. Canada (National Energy Board), 2013 FCA 236 (CanLII).  Forest Ethics is suing the government over recent changes to the National Energy Board Act which it claims “unreasonably restrict public comment on project proposals.” At issue is a new section introduced in one of the large conservative budget bills which limits participation on issues before the National Energy Board (NEB) to those who are “directly affected.”

In the decision, the Federal Court of Appeal had to decide whether Enbridge and Valero – two oil and gas companies – would have standing to become respondents or intervenors in the case against the government.  Ironically, the court had to interpret section 303 of the Federal Courts Act which also uses the “directly affected” test.

Continue reading “Nesting dolls of “directly affected” in federal law under judicial review”

How will CEAA review panels interpret “directly affected” and “interested party”? Alberta provides some clues

November 12th, 2012 by Laura Bowman

The new federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) has adopted new criteria for standing at review panel hearings that includes the words “directly affected”.  The Kelly series of cases from Alberta help shed some light on the meaning of that requirement and how it might develop at the federal level.  Under CEAA 2012 review panels will decide what it means, but will be subject to supervision by the courts.

Continue reading “How will CEAA review panels interpret “directly affected” and “interested party”? Alberta provides some clues”