Selection Note: In the context of two judicial review applications brought by First Nations which allege British Columbia's free-entry mining claim system is unconstitutional, this judgment considers whether other First Nations, environmental groups, or additional entities should be permitted to intervene in the proceedings and, if so, what terms should be imposed on the intervenors. Aboriginal and indigenous law-Practice and procedure - Parties -Intervenors-Two petitioners challenged mineral tenure regime in Mineral Tenure Act and Mineral Tenure Act Regulation - Currently, system was "free entry" with no duty to consult with any Indigenous Nation prior to staking claim for mineral rights - Petitioners asserted system was unconstitutional because it did not meet crown's obligations to consult - Petitions were joined as they shared evidence and sought similar relief - Eight separate groups applied for intervenor status for petitions - One group included three mining associations in British Columbia, applying as mining industry coalition (MIC) - MIC sought to adduce evidence as intervenor - Groups brought application for intervenor status - All applications allowed - With regard to petitioner-aligned applicants, each organization presented lens upon issue that would assist court in making ultimate determinations - Each group had sufficiently broad representation - Petitions clearly engaged interests of groups - Petitioner-aligned in-tervenors were given 15 minutes of oral submission and 15 pages of written submissions - MIC granted 30 minutes oral submissions and 30 pages written submissions - MIC's application to adduce evidence was dismissed - Inter-venor's right to adduce evidence is only allowed in rare cases - Most of MIC's evidence was prima facie inadmissible or already addressed by respondents -Addressing further evidence would have required further cross-examination and would likely delay hearing.
展开▼
