This decision was heard in the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, and it followed the decisions in Pictou Landing First Nation v Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2014 NSSC 61, and Pictou Landing First Nation v Nova Scotia (Aboriginal Affairs), 2018 NSSC 306.

Northern Pulp Nova Scotia Corporation ("Northern Pulp") operates a pulp mill in Nova Scotia. The mill's operations required an effluent treatment facility, and the mill's facility was located in Boat Harbour. Years of pollution had affected the nearby Pictou Landing First Nation, and in 2015 the Province of Nova Scotia set a timeline for the closure of the Boat Harbour effluent treatment facility.

As the deadline for the closure approached, Northern Pulp made plans to construct a new effluent treatment facility. The proposed facility triggered an environmental assessment process and the provincial government's duty to consult with Pictou Landing First Nation ("PLFN"). While consultations were underway, the provincial government informed PLFN that it was in talks with Northern Pulp concerning potential funding that the province might provide to the corporation, and the province also stated that it did not intend to consult with PLFN about the potential funding.

PLFN applied to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ("NSSC") for judicial review of the government's decision not to consult PLFN about the potential funding, and the NSSC held that the province owed PLFN a duty to consult about the potential funding. The provincial government then appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ("NSCA")

As the parties prepared for the appeal, Northern Pulp applied to the NSCA to act as an Intervenor in the appeal. In this decision, the NSCA decided that Northern Pulp had a direct interest in the issue and that the corporation would also bring a unique perspective to the proceedings. Northern Pulp was granted leave to intervene.

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/2019/2019nsca12/2019nsca12.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.