Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Environment and Climate Change Minister Jonathan Wilkinson speaks in the House of Commons, in Ottawa, on Nov. 19, 2020.

Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press

A coal company is asking Federal Court this week to toss out a decision by Canada’s environment minister that a proposed Alberta mine expansion should get a full federal environmental review.

Coalspur Mines argues the decision was based on an unfair assumption that two separate projects are related and should be considered together. It says Jonathan Wilkinson’s decision was unreasonable and should be quashed.

“(Wilkinson’s) reasons are silent as to the legal and factual bases on which the minister decided to consider the unrelated projects together,” say Coalspur’s written arguments.

Story continues below advertisement

“Even if the minister did not require a sufficient connection, he failed to explain what alternative standard he applied to reach his decision.”

The environmental law firm Ecojustice argues legislation enables the minister to consider the cumulative effects of projects. It says Coalspur’s plans far exceed the production threshold that triggers a federal review and come very close to crossing the size threshold.

Quashing the review, Ecojustice says, would give companies a green light to split up future plans into smaller projects to avoid a more extensive federal review.

“A precedent … could incentivize proponents to provide limited information in regards to a proposed project, or otherwise to engage in project-splitting.”

Coalspur has two proposals for its Vista mine near Hinton, Alta. One is an underground mine and the other an expansion that would make its existing surface operation Canada’s largest thermal coal mine.

The company says the two plans are unrelated and that one could easily proceed without the other. It denies is it project-splitting.

“There was not an iota of evidence before the minister to support his theory that Coalspur artificially separated the projects for the purpose of avoiding any assessment, federal or otherwise,” it says.

Story continues below advertisement

The underground mine footprint would be small. The surface mine, however, would come within a whisker of increasing the existing operations by 50 per cent, a level at which Ottawa would automatically step in.

Coalspur says it was originally told by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada that neither the underground nor the surface projects would require federal involvement. In December 2019, Wilkinson agreed – then reversed himself seven months later.

Coalspur argues that decision was the result of heavy lobbying. It says impacts to areas under federal jurisdiction are small and could be handled by an Alberta review. It says Wilkinson’s reversal impinges on the province’s rights.

A federal review could delay the project and its economic benefits by more than four years, Coalspur says.

Ecojustice, representing several environmental groups, said Coalspur failed to tell the minister about the underground project before he made his initial decision. That project raises concerns about cumulative effects, as well as factors such as Indigenous consultation and the increase in public concern over coal-mining in Alberta.

“Coalspur ignores the purpose of cumulative effects assessment, which is to look at the projects in their real-world context, rather than in isolation, in order to assess their true impacts,” Ecojustice argues.

Story continues below advertisement

Ecojustice says the minister’s decision to step in was also informed by public concern and by possible effects on fisheries and migratory birds – both federal responsibilities.

“A high degree of public concern about the Vista Expansion Phase’s effects, including on air, groundwater, fish, migratory birds, and species at risk, was both summarized by the (assessment agency) and before the minister when he made his decision,” it says.

Arguments in the case are expected to wrap up this week.

We have a weekly Western Canada newsletter written by our B.C. and Alberta bureau chiefs, providing a comprehensive package of the news you need to know about the region and its place in the issues facing Canada. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies