skip to main content
Back to all blog posts

Posted in: Facilities | Canada (Federal) | British Columbia | Climate Change / Renewables

May 27, 2019

B.C. Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Regulate the Shipment of Bitumen Through the Province

By David Stevens and Stan Fedun

In a unanimous decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held British Columbia does not have jurisdiction to regulate the shipment of “heavy oil” through the province.

A year ago, the Government of British Columbia submitted a reference to the Court asking to confirm whether proposed amendments to the Environmental Management Act (EMA) were intra vires. You can read more about the reference, here.

At the centre of the reference is proposed Part 2.1 of the EMA. The purpose of the proposed amendment is “the protection of the environment, the health and well-being of British Columbians and their communities from the adverse effects of hazardous substances, and the implementation of the ‘polluter pays’ principle.” The effect of the proposed amendment is to regulate the shipment of “most forms of heavy crude oil and all bitumen and blended bitumen products” and require permits for shippers whose volumes increase beyond prior levels.

British Columbia asked the Court three questions regarding the proposed amendment:

  1. Does British Columbia have jurisdiction to “substantially” enact the proposed amendment?
  2. If so, would the proposed amendment “be applicable to hazardous substances brought into British Columbia by means of interprovincial undertakings?”
  3. If so, is some or all of the proposed amendment inoperative because of existing federal law?

The Court answered “no” to the first question and did not consider the remaining two questions.

At the outset, the Court framed the reference as strictly a matter of jurisdiction and not “whether the planned Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (“TMX”) should be regulated to minimize the risks it poses to the environment — that is a given.”

British Columbia conceded the TMX expansion is an interprovincial undertaking, but it maintained “the expansion and operation of the pipeline as a carrier of heavy oil will have a disproportionate effect on the interests of British Columbians, as compared with other Canadians.” Accordingly, the province argued the proposed amendments fall under “Property and Civil Rights in the Province” or “Matters of a merely local or private nature” under section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Canada argued it has jurisdiction under subsection 91(29) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the proposed amendments are specifically excluded from provincial jurisdiction by paragraph 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (“Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province”).

Both Canada and British Columbia acknowledged that in certain circumstances some jurisdictional overlap is unavoidable; however, in this case, Canada contended “the proposed addition is targeted legislation and would effectively lead to a situation of concurrent jurisdiction, contrary to the exclusive authority contemplated by the Constitution Act.” Canada argued that the National Energy Board Act and related statutes create a comprehensive scheme for the regulation of interprovincial pipelines, including environmental protection.

The unanimous five member panel of the British Columbia Court of Appeal sided with Canada. While “both levels of government have jurisdiction over aspects of the environment,” the Court ultimately concluded that the proposed amendments are ultra vires because they apply directly to an interprovincial undertaking and have the potential to “stop [the TMX project] in its tracks.” Furthermore, the effect of proposed Part 2.1 of the EMA is “to usurp the role of the NEB.” While the TMX project impacts British Columbia, it is “not only a ‘British Columbia project’.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that jurisdiction over the pipeline properly belongs to federal jurisdiction:

Both the law relating to the division of powers and the practicalities surrounding the TMX project lead to the conclusion, then, that the pith and substance of the proposed Part 2.1 is to place conditions on, and if necessary, prohibit, the carriage of heavy oil thorough an interprovincial undertaking. Such legislation does not in its pith and substance relate to “Property … in the Province” or to “Matters of a merely local or private Nature,” but to Parliament’s jurisdiction in respect of federal undertakings under s. 92(10) of the Constitution Act. Contrary to [British Columbia’s] submission, this conclusion does not reflect a ‘sea change’ in the law, a return to ‘watertight’ compartments of jurisdiction or a diminution of co-operative federalism. Rather it reflects the more basic principle that ss. 91 and 92 provide for “exclusive” heads of power that have substantive content.

British Columbia has announced that it will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Areas of Expertise

Related Blogs

Posted in: Practice & Procedure | Facilities | Canada (Federal)

Insights EnergyInsider
Federal Court of Appeal Quashes Cabinet Approval of Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion By David Stevens and Matthew Helfand Sep 05, 2018 On August 30, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in the matter of Tsleil-Waututh Nation et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al. In this decision, the court has quashed Cabinet’s approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.

Posted in: Canada (Federal) | British Columbia

Insights EnergyInsider
Supreme Court of British Columbia Dismisses Challenges to Trans Mountain Pipeline Environmental Assessment By Zoë Thoms and Stan Fedun Jun 05, 2018 On May 24, 2018, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed challenges to the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project by the City of Vancouver and the Squamish Nation.​ Both parties petitioned the Court to set aside the Environmental Assessment Certificate issued by British Columbia’s Mini...

Posted in: Canada (Federal) | Energy Policy | Facilities | British Columbia

Insights EnergyInsider
Federal Government to Intervene in B.C.’s TransMountain Reference Case By David Stevens May 04, 2018 On May 3, 2018, the federal Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould announced that the federal government will intervene in the British Columbia government’s reference question to the B.C. Court of Appeal. The Justice Minister indicated that “[w]e are confident in Parliament’s jurisdiction and w...

Posted in: Canada (Federal) | British Columbia | Facilities | Alberta

Insights EnergyInsider
B.C. Government Asks Court of Appeal to Affirm Right to Limit Bitumen Shipments Through the Province By Zoë Thoms Apr 27, 2018 The Government of British Columbia submitted a reference question to the B.C. Court of Appeal regarding the recently-announced regulations that will stop pipeline companies from increasing bitumen shipments through the province. The government is looking for the court to affirm its jurisdiction t...