Grassy Mountain Coal Project

These proceedings arise from the proposed Grassy Mountain Steelmaking Coal Project in southwestern Alberta and stem from a joint federal-provincial impact assessment conducted under the Impact Assessment Act and Alberta's environmental assessment regime. In 2021, the Joint Review Panel concluded that the project was likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that could not be justified in the public interest. In reaching that conclusion, the Panel considered numerous statutory factors, including the project's greenhouse gas emissions, contribution to climate change, sustainability, cumulative environmental effects, and consistency with Canada's environmental and climate objectives. Relying on the Panel's report, the federal Minister determined that the project's adverse effects were not in the public interest, while Alberta regulators likewise refused to authorize the mine.

The resulting litigation concerns different stages of those regulatory decisions. In Benga Mining Limited v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2024 FC 231, the Federal Court reviewed the federal decision-making process. While rejecting the proponent's substantive challenges to the Panel's report and the Minister's assessment, the Court allowed applications brought by the Piikani Nation and the Stoney Nakoda Nations, finding that procedural fairness had been breached when the Minister considered post-report submissions without giving the Nations an opportunity to respond. The Minister's Decision Statement was therefore set aside and remitted for redetermination. In Northback Holdings Corporation v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2025 FCA 31, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the proponent's appeal was not rendered moot by the Federal Court's judgment and allowed the appeal to proceed. Separately, Northback Holdings Corporation v. Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 ABCA 186 concerns parallel challenges to the Alberta Energy Regulator's refusal to approve the project and addresses the availability and scope of judicial review under Alberta's statutory regulatory framework.

Although none of the courts independently evaluated the project's greenhouse gas emissions or interpreted Canada's climate obligations, climate change formed an important part of the statutory context underlying the litigation. The courts repeatedly referred to the impact assessment process, in which greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, sustainability, and broader environmental effects were considered as factors informing the public interest determination.