TASEKO MINES LIMITED Appellant v. THE MINISTER, 2015 FCA 254

Date: 20151116 Docket: A-225-14 Citation: 2015 FCA 254 CORAM: NADON J.A. SCOTT J.A. RENNIE J.A. BETWEEN:TASEKO MINES LIMITEDAppellantandTHE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and THE FEDERAL REVIEW PANELand THE TSILHQOT'IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT and JOEY ALPHONSE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other membersof the Tsilhqot'in NationRespondents Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 16, 2015. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 16, 2015. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A.

Date: 20151116 Docket: A-225-14 Citation: 2015 FCA 254 CORAM: NADON J.A. SCOTT J.A. RENNIE J.A. BETWEEN:TASEKO MINES LIMITEDAppellantandTHE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and THE FEDERAL REVIEWPANEL and THE TSILHQOT'IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT and JOEY ALPHONSE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all othermembers of the Tsilhqot'in NationRespondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 16, 2015).

NADON J.A. [1] Although we cannot endorse all of Harrington J.’s reasoning and in particular his comments at paragraph 21 of his reasonswhere he appears to adopt a test which goes to the merits of the case, we are satisfied that he reached the proper result in refusing tomake the order of production sought by the Appellant. [2] More particularly we are of the view that, in the words of Gonthier J. in Commission des affaires sociales v.

NoémicTremblay and Minister of Manpower and Income Security, (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 952 at p. 966, there are no “validreasons for believing that the process followed did not comply with the rules of natural justice”. [3] In other words, the fact that the Secretariat personnel spent approximately 3000 hours working on the Review Panel’s report

does not constitute, per se, a sufficient basis to conclude to the existence of valid or good grounds justifying the lifting of the veil of secrecy. This is not, in our respectful opinion, one of those exceptional cases where, in the view of the Supreme Court of Canada, it would be proper to allow the production of documents which would normally fall under the veil of the secrecy of deliberations. [ 4 ] The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs. "M. Nadon" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: A-225-14 (APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR.

JUSTICE HARRINGTON, DATED APRIL 17, 2014, DOCKET NO. T-1977-13) STYLE OF CAUSE: TASEKO MINES LIMITED v. THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND THE FEDERAL REVIEW PANEL AND THE TSILHQOT'IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND JOEY ALPHONSE, ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE TSILHQOT'IN NATION PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: November 16, 2015 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. SCOTT J.A. RENNIE J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: NADON J.A. APPEARANCES : K. Michael Stephens K.

Webber For The Appellant Lorne Lachance Michele Charles For The Respondents THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA David Bursey For The Respondent THE FEDERAL REVIEW PANEL [BLANK] For The Respondents THE TSILHQOT'IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND JOEY ALPHONSE ET AL SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Hunter Litigation Chambers Barristers & Solicitors Vancouver, British Columbia For The Appellant William F.

Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For The Respondents THE MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Bennett Jones LLP Barristers & Solicitors Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent THE FEDERAL REVIEW PANEL

Jay Nelson Law Barrister & Solicitor Victoria, British Columbia For The Respondents THE TSILHQOT'IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND JOEY ALPHONSE ET AL