VANCOUVER—British Columbia’s top court cleared the way Friday for an expanded Trans Mountain pipeline to reach Canada’s West Coast, dismissing the province’s bid to gain some control over how much oil can flow across its land and to its shore.

But after B.C. Attorney General David Eby vowed to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, one legal expert said there’s plenty of room for the country’s highest court to reach a different conclusion when it reviews the file.

“It’s an incredibly complex area of Canadian law,” said Jocelyn Stacey, an expert in environmental law at the University of British Columbia who has law degrees from both the University of Calgary and Yale University.

“This was a missed opportunity by the courts for recognizing and grappling with how Indigenous jurisdiction factors into a division-of-powers analysis between the provinces and the federal government, and I think that’s really unfortunate,” she said, noting that the court’s decision was issued just two month’s after hearing submissions in the case.

Some Indigenous governments presented arguments supporting B.C.’s stance, but the court didn’t address them in its decision.

Marilyn Slett, elected Chief Councillor of the Heiltsuk Nation, called the ruling “offensive and irresponsible,” in a joint statement issued by Heiltsuk and the Haida Nation.

“It is unacceptable that despite being granted interested party status, the court failed to even acknowledge ours or any other Indigenous governments’ arguments in its decision,” she said.

The Haida and the Heiltsuk nations contend the decision will increase the project’s risks for environmental damage.

“Heiltsuk’s experience with the Nathan E. Stewart oil spill brought to light gaps in federal spill response that have negatively impacted the remote community’s recovery from the 2016 spill,” the statement noted.

The federal government and Alberta Premier Jason Kenney lauded the ruling by British Columbia’s Court of Appeal.

“We hope that the B.C. government will respect the rule of law and end its campaign of obstruction,” Kenney said in a statement following the ruling, adding he looked forward to working with the federal and British Columbia governments now that the court has made its decision.

That seems unlikely, given the tone Eby struck, speaking to reporters in Vancouver.

“We continue to believe that we have the authority and the responsibility to protect our environment and economy,” Eby said. “Our government always said this case would likely be heard by the Supreme Court.”

The Trans Mountain expansion project, which the federal government bought for $4.5 billion last year alongside the existing pipeline, was described by Kenney Friday as a “win-win” for Alberta and British Columbia.

Read More:

Appeal Court to decide on B.C. pipeline law that would impact Trans Mountain

B.C. blocking heavy oil would be ‘unjust discrimination’ against businesses, federal lawyer argues

B.C. blocking heavy oil would be ‘unjust discrimination’ against businesses, federal lawyer argues

If built, the second 1,000-kilometre pipeline would triple the existing capacity from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels a day of diluted bitumen and other oil products. The expansion is expected to result in a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic through the Burrard Inlet to the Westridge marine terminal in Burnaby.

However, it continues to face strong resistance in coast B.C.

Last spring, the B.C. government proposed amendments to environmental legislation that would require Trans Mountain or any company to obtain a permit before transporting any increased level of heavy oil through B.C. The permits would have required companies to prove they had a plan to prevent spills and had the capacity to clean them up and compensate affected communities before transporting any more bitumen through B.C.

On Friday, five B.C. Court of Appeal justices unanimously struck down the proposal in a 65-page ruling written by Justice Mary Newbury.

“Even if it were not intended to ‘single out’ the (Trans Mountain expansion) pipeline, it has the potential to affect (and indeed ‘stop in its tracks’) the entire operation of Trans Mountain as an interprovincial carrier and exporter of oil,” she wrote.

“The project affects the country as a whole, and falls to be regulated taking into account the interests of the country as a whole.”

In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for federal Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi said the federal government welcomes the B.C. court decision as Ottawa continues to move forward with the Trans Mountain expansion in “the right way.”

“It is a core responsibility of the federal government to help get Canada’s natural resources to market and support good, middle-class jobs, but we know that is only possible when we earn public trust by addressing environmental, Indigenous peoples’, and local concerns,” said Vanessa Adams, Sohi’s press secretary.

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

Lawyers representing the B.C. government argued the environment was a type of “property” that the province had jurisdiction over and therefore it should have the power to protect it as it sees fit.

Newbury wrote that environmental protection is too important to belong to one level of government exclusively, and ultimately rejected B.C.’s argument.

The amendment “threatens to usurp the role of the (National Energy Board), which has made many rulings and imposed many conditions to be complied with by Trans Mountain for the protection of the environment,” she wrote.

“At the end of the day, the NEB is the body entrusted with regulating the flow of energy resources across Canada to export markets.”

Environmental groups echoed the B.C. government’s disappointment with the court’s decision.

Kegan Pepper-Smith, a lawyer with Ecojustice who made submissions in the case, said there are clear gaps in the regulation of pipelines, including one where companies do not have to prove they have the ability to clean up spills.

“The province identified holes in the current federal regime and said, ‘we want to fill those holes with our own response and remediation regime,’ he said, “and we would hope, not withstanding this decision, the federal government recognizes those issues and fill those holes under its own authority.”

But the environmental concerns go beyond Friday’s ruling, said Chris Genovali, executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation. Even if there were stricter regulations, B.C. is still being forced to take on the “greatest amount of risk” in the name of economic gain by exporting bitumen.

“It appears the intention is to sacrifice B.C.’s priceless coast as the preferred export pathway,” he said.

During hearings in March, lawyers representing B.C. agreed the province can’t stop a federally regulated project, but argued the project is also “not immune from provincial environmental laws.”

“The province of British Columbia has every right to protect its citizens, to protect its environment, and to protect its economy,” Premier John Horgan said last spring when his government announced the case.

“Tens of thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in GDP, depend on a clean and pristine environment here in British Columbia,” he said.

Last year, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the expansion project’s federal approval — a major victory for the pipeline’s opponents.

The court said Ottawa’s consultation with First Nations was flawed and ignoring oil tanker risks was an “unjustified failure.”

In response, the federal government asked the National Energy Board to reconsider the project in light of risks to the marine environment. The federal government also undertook new consultations with First Nations.

In February, the NEB recommended the project move forward, despite the potential for significant environmental harm.

In April, the federal government said it was delaying its decision on whether to proceed with the pipeline to June 18, although it’s possible that deadline could be extended or referred back for further study.

With files from David P. Ball, Alex Ballingall, Kieran Leavitt, and the Canadian Press.

Read more about: