Labrador Inuit Association v. Newfoundland (Minister of Environment and Labour), 1997 CanLII 16007 (NL SCTD)

This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Trial Division).

In the midst of an environmental assessment process that had been designed to review proposed mining and milling operations at Voisey’s Bay, the Province of Newfoundland decided to exempt certain “support works”—which included the construction of a temporary access road and airstrip—from the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) that had been created to facilitate the environmental review. The Labrador Inuit Association and Innu Nation applied for judicial review of the Minister’s decision to exempt the “support works” from the MOU, and among other things asked the Court to declare that the access road and airstrip needed to be assessed under the environmental assessment process described in the MOU.

The Nunavik Inuit, represented by Makivik Corporation and Makivik Corporation, applied for leave to intervene in the proceedings. After consideration, the Court held that the applicants wished to raise legal issues that were different from the issues being raised by the Labrador Inuit Association and Innu Nation, and therefore should not be granted intervenor status. The Court also declined to grant the Nunavik Inuit status as Friends of the Court, and it held that there were no grounds upon which to exercise its discretion to grant them status for any other reason. Their application was therefore dismissed.

To read related decisions, go to Labrador Inuit Association v. Newfoundland (Minister of Environment and Labour), 1997 CanLII 16040 (NL SCTD) and Labrador Inuit Association v. Newfoundland (Minister of Environment and Labour), 1997 CanLII 14612 (NL CA).

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlsctd/doc/1997/1997canlii16007/1997canlii16007.html

Disclaimer:
Case briefs in our Resource Library are drafted by law students who work or volunteer with East Coast Environmental Law, and East Coast Environmental Law does not guarantee their fullness or accuracy. Library users should not rely on case briefs as comprehensive accounts of the issues, facts, reasoning, or outcomes at stake in any given case. 

If you require more detailed information about a court decision or legal issue, please consider using our Environmental Law Inquiry Service to request information from our staff.