Background
Major energy projects in Canada currently face extraordinary
completion risk – whether by way of undue delay, major
restructuring or outright abandonment. A material contributor to
such completion risk has been judicial review: the policies,
practices and standards that Canada's courts have applied in
reviewing administrative decisions made to assess and approve
proposed projects. One need look no further than the delay and
restructuring of the Trans-Mountain Expansion project or the
abandonment of the Northern Gateway project – each of which
was, at the very least, materially affected by the timing and/or
outcome of judicial review.
When proposed energy projects are approved by administrative
bodies like the Canadian Energy Regulator, or equivalent provincial
bodies, opponents of those projects frequently appeal or otherwise
apply to courts to review and quash those decisions. The questions
for administrative decision-makers, and the courts who hear
