VANCOUVER—After Canada’s second-highest court sided with First Nations, environmentalists and B.C. cities Thursday on the Trans Mountain pipeline, who are the key players behind the court challenge, and what are they arguing?

The major judgment is a “benchmark” ruling, experts say, that will have impacts beyond one project.

It was one of the pipeline’s most significant legal hurdles to date, as the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the project’s approval and ordered new consultations with Indigenous peoples.

The judges were tasked with addressing multiple challenges to both the National Energy Board’s May 2016 recommendation to approve the pipeline and the November 2016 decision by the federal cabinet to approve it.

So who was involved in the pivotal legal challenge?

The case is actually more than a dozen different lawsuits which were consolidated by the court, brought by more than two dozen First Nations, municipal governments and environmental groups seeking to overturn the federal government’s decision.

Read more:

Federal Court of Appeal quashes Trans Mountain approval, calls it ‘unjustified failure’ in win for First Nations, environmentalists

Kinder Morgan shareholders vote 99 per cent in favour of Trans Mountain pipeline sale to Ottawa

The ruling comes the same day as Kinder Morgan shareholders voted overwhelmingly to finalize the sale of the project to the federal government for $4.5 billion.

Dyna Tuytel, a lawyer with Ecojustice, explained that the “complementary” cases were heard together because they’re challenging the same pair of decisions.

However, they’re all based on different legal arguments. That means the court would have to rule in favour of just one case to stall or possibly stop the project, said Greg McDade, the lawyer representing the City of Burnaby.

“Success on some of the arguments might kill the pipeline, a success on others might just cause some delay,” he said.

If constructed, the pipeline would twin the existing 1,100-km pipeline and triple the flow of diluted bitumen and other oil products, sending 890,000 barrels a day from Alberta through the pipelines to B.C.’s coast. It would also result in a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic through the Salish Sea from Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby.

It has been a major source of political conflict, pitting B.C.’s provincial government, the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby, some Indigenous communities, and environmental groups against pro-pipeline governments in Alberta and Ottawa, Texas-based Kinder Morgan, cities in Alberta, and people who rely on construction and oilsands jobs for their livelihoods.

While it may not be the final word on the project, the judges’ decision Thursday is expected to be a major milestone in the ongoing saga — and alongside the B.C. government’s own reference case over whether it has authority to regulate oil flow, it’s a final legal hurdle for the project.

“It’s a benchmark event,” said regulatory lawyer Bill Gallagher, author of Resource Rulers and the upcoming book Resource Reckoning, in a phone interview. “There’s at least 16 actions in there; somebody in any one of those may have come up with an argument that sticks.

“But no matter who wins, the (opponents’) strategy did pull off the major coup of spooking Kinder Morgan such that they exited Canada. I think Kinder Morgan is just glad to be out … This is a country at war with itself on access to resources.”

Expanding the project is predicted to cost at least $7.4-billion.

According to Gallagher, however, Thursday’s much-anticipated ruling will almost certainly not be the final word on the project, since whoever loses is likely to try to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“The dismissal of the Northern Gateway pipeline was the high-water mark for the rise of Native empowerment,” he said, “and it went down in flames.

“The big difference with this court case, for the Native side and eco activists, is that the Trudeau government sent a roving commission across B.C. to let anybody in with a view about the pipeline. They consulted — we’ll find out how much weight the court gives to that effort.”

Here are some of the key groups named in the case:

Trans Mountain Expansion Project

The company that’s the subject in the challenge against the federal government has repeatedly said the pipeline and tankers carrying diluted bitumen will meet world-class safety standards, and that it has signed benefit agreements with more than 40 First Nations along its route — and has extensively consulted others impacted.

“It wouldn’t be appropriate for us to speculate about what the court may decide,” a spokesperson said in an email. “Trans Mountain presented evidence about our consultations with Indigenous Peoples, the environmental assessment, the regulatory process, the report of the NEB, and why the project is in the public’s interest.”

Government of Canada

Both the Attorney General of Canada and the National Energy Board are named as respondents in the consolidated case.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the NEB said the board did not take an overall position, but rather provided submissions on process issues and the board’s jurisdiction.

StarMetro requested comment from Natural Resources Canada about the importance of the case and was directed to the Department of Finance, however a spokesperson said the department is waiting until after the decision is released to comment.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his ministers have repeatedly said the project is in the national interest, that it will create tens of thousands of jobs in B.C. and Alberta and ensure a fair price for Alberta oil in the world market. It’s also been explained as a trade-off for securing Alberta’s support for a national carbon pricing plan.

He said in April that Canada had completed the “deepest consultation with rights holders ever on a major project in this country … (and) to date, 43 First Nations have negotiated benefit agreements with the project — 33 of those in B.C.”

“The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is a vital strategic interest to Canada,” he said then. “It will be built.”

Tsleil-Waututh Nation

Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s case is based on the argument that there was inadequate consultation before the project was approved.

On Wednesday, Councillor Charlene Aleck said the pipeline expansion poses “too much risk” to their well-being.

Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s administration building, cultural centre and some of its members are based on the opposite shore of Burrard Inlet from Kinder Morgan’s Westridge Marine Terminal and already surrounded by industry.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“We are drawing a line and saying no, enough is enough,” Aleck said.

There was a time when 90 per cent of the Nation’s food came from the inlet, she said, and over the last 15 years they’ve worked to rehabilitate it.

“We’ve come to the point where last year and the year before we were able to harvest a small amount of clams, so that’s what we’re working towards. That’s the life that we want,” she said.

Their concern is that the Trans Mountain expansion and the associated increase in tanker traffic could put that work at risk.

Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation

The environmental organizations argued that the project’s approval was invalid because the National Energy Board failed to consider the increase in tanker traffic and the impact it would have on endangered Southern Resident killer whales.

According to Ecojustice lawyer Dyna Tuytel, who represented Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation, the board defined the project as the pipeline and the terminal, not the marine shipping.

If they had considered the expected sevenfold increase in tanker traffic in the scope of the project — as the environmental groups argue they should have — the government would have been required to mitigate the impact of the increased shipping on the killer whales under the Species At Risk Act.

Tuytel said if the project moves forward more than 400 tankers would travel to and from the terminal every year — directly through critical killer whale habitat. The noise from that traffic could disrupt the whales’ ability to communicate and forage for food.

City of Burnaby

The City of Burnaby’s challenge is based on a “failure of process” argument, explained Greg McDade, a lawyer with Ratcliff & Company representing the city.

“In our view this was one of the most flawed, so-called public hearings in NEB history,” he said, noting no cross-examination of the evidence was allowed and no alternative route for the pipeline was considered, a move he called “kind of bizarre.”

The NEB, he said, argued that because it was an “expansion” of an existing pipeline it didn’t have to consider an alternate route.

If the city loses its challenge, McDade said will be up to City Council to decide if they will ask for leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

City of Vancouver

British Columbia’s largest city is another prominent player opposing the project, and its legal case focused on the risks and impacts an oil spill in the Burrard Inlet.

The city has argued that a “catastrophic” spill, no matter how unlikely, over the course of the pipeline’s decades of operation would obliterate not just the city’s environment, but also its tourism and realty industries, “green” reputation worldwide, and even citizens’ quality of life.

Mayor Gregor Robertson was unavailable for an interview before the ruling, but in an earlier interview told StarMetro that the “serious environmental and economic concerns raised by citizens, communities and First Nations” about the project remain unaddressed.

“With the seven-times increase in oil tankers,” he said, “even with the best-case scenario with spill response in Vancouver’s waters, a huge oil spill would be absolutely devastating.”

Coldwater Indian Band

Another First Nation that’s part of the consolidated court challenge is Coldwater Indian Band, near Merritt, B.C. Unlike coastal nations more often in the spotlight against the project, Coldwater is landlocked — but like the others says that water is at the centre of their case.

That’s because the Trans Mountain project runs through the reserve’s drinking water aquifer.

“This is about our water reserves for about 90 per cent of our community,” said Chief Lee Spahan in a phone interview. “That’s the major thing our membership is worried about — we hear Justin Trudeau trying to stop water advisories on reserves across Canada, but he wants to put this pipeline through our aquifer?

“I’m trying to stay optimistic. I’m hoping for the best — for a case win for Coldwater and our aquifer … But I don’t regret anything about this, we’ve stood up for our people having our voices be heard. We’ve never given consent to this project.”

Read more about: