Voters Taking Action on Climate Change v British Columbia

In 2015, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change (VTACC), an environmental advocacy organization, sought judicial review of two British Columbia government decisions relating to the expansion of a coal storage and transshipment facility operated by Texada Quarrying Ltd. (a Lafarge subsidiary) on Texada Island.

VTACC argued that the Chief Inspector of Mines lacked jurisdiction under the Mines Act to authorize expanded coal storage and handling activities because those activities were not sufficiently connected to mining operations and should instead have been regulated under the Environmental Management Act (EMA). VTACC also challenged the Ministry of Environment's decision that the facility did not require an environmental permit under the EMA and alleged that procedural fairness was breached when additional materials submitted by the company were not made available for public comment.

The challenge arose in the context of VTACC's broader opposition to thermal coal export infrastructure. VTACC maintained that increasing the facility's coal-handling capacity would facilitate greater coal exports from British Columbia and ultimately contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions when the coal was burned. The organization sought to use the permitting process to scrutinize governmental decisions that enabled the expansion of coal-export activities. The Court, however, characterized the proceeding as a narrow review of a specific permit amendment and environmental permitting determination rather than a challenge to the province's broader policies regarding coal development, coal exports, or climate change.

The Court held that VTACC lacked public interest standing because the dispute concerned a site-specific permitting decision and did not raise an issue of public importance transcending the interests of those directly affected. The Court nevertheless considered the merits and found that both the Chief Inspector's permit amendment decision and the Ministry of Environment's determination were reasonable and procedurally fair. The petition was dismissed.