Unpacking the wins and the losses
June 28, 2025
Tracey Saxby
Last Friday, the Federal Court Decision was released, dismissing My Sea to Sky’s application for judicial review of the Federal approval of Woodfibre LNG's floating workcamp. Our application was heard alongside another judicial review by two applicants who were represented by the lawyer at Justice for Girls.
You may have seen the sensationalized headlines in the Squamish Chief or Global News reporting that we lost. But it is not so simple. Those headlines gloss over the fact that we actually won a number of key issues in the decision. Let's unpack the wins and losses.
We won on "standing"
"Standing" is a legal concept that determines whether a person or group has the right to bring a case to court. Challenges to standing is a tactic often used by governments and corporations to delay, derail, or dismiss legal challenges to avoid having the court evaluate whether their actions were unlawful or harmful. Both Woodfibre LNG and the Federal Government challenged our "standing."
The judge ruled that this is a public interest case, and granted My Sea to Sky public interest standing AND direct interest standing (paragraphs 32–33).
This is a big win! Several of our legal actions have been held up for 18+ months now as FortisBC and the BC Energy Regulator have also challenged our standing. This ruling sets a positive precedent. We are now a legal force to be reckoned with!
This ruling also opens the door for other small, feisty non-profits to stand up to protect the public interest.
We won on justiciability
This may be the most important precedent from this case. The Federal Government and Woodfibre LNG argued that the Minister's decision to approve the floating workcamp was not a "reviewable decision" and that “the Analysis Report is a mere recommendation and is not justiciable.”
“Justiciable” is about whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case, and therefore whether or not it can be subject to judicial review. The Federal Government and Woodfibre LNG argued it could not.
This is a tough body of case law which has gone against environmental advocates and First Nations many times in the last decade. The Federal Government and Woodfibre LNG relied on cases related to the Trans Mountain Pipeline and others which found that a “report” going to the Minister was not reviewable. This body of law has been getting worse for the environment.
Our lawyers argued that in this case it was reviewable because it was the final step in the process and the court agreed, saying “…the Agency’s decision was effectively final, unless overturned by the Minister, which did not happen.”
The judge ruled that this is a "reviewable decision." This restores the bar to ground jurisdiction for judicial review at a reasonable place, and should be helpful in other resource project cases going forward (paragraphs 27–35).
We won on "mootness"
Woodfibre LNG and the Federal Government argued that the case was "moot" as the floatel is already in place. Like "standing," mootness is often used to shut down legal challenges instead of debating whether the government or corporation did the right thing.
The judge dismissed the mootness argument as “hollow,” ruling that "This remains a live issue until construction is over.”
Like standing, this can be a significant hurdle, and this is another precedent-setting ruling (paragraph 23).
We won on "collateral attack"
Governments and corporations also use "collateral attack" arguments to dismiss lawsuits. For example, when communities don't have the time, money, or information to challenge the original decision, they argue that "You should have appealed earlier" or that "They’re trying to undo a valid decision through the back door.”
In this case, the Federal Government argued that by challenging the Federal approval of the floatel, we were also challenging the Provincial and Squamish Nation approvals, AND the original 2016 approval of the Woodfibre LNG project.
The judge dismissed this argument, ruling that "the three environmental assessment processes that apply to Woodfibre LNG’s project are independent of each other. Each one is based on its own legislation and its own criteria. Hence, challenging the outcome of one process does not automatically amount to a collateral attack against the outcome of another process..." (paragraphs 24–26).
Although this is not strictly a precedent, it is a nice clear statement of the law and will be helpful for others arguing that each permit must be won on its own merits. Getting one permit does not guarantee that you get another.
This notion, that once a proponent has one permit they are somehow entitled to every other permit that they require, has long been sought by the oil and gas industry, and has now been enshrined in section 6 of the new Building Canada Act (Bill C5), showing how important it is to the oil and gas industry.
Gender-based violence: we have more work to do!
The judge accepted that violence against women and girls is an impact associated with workcamps and that governments have to take measures to prevent it.
The judge acknowledged that "The presence of a largely male construction workforce gives rise to a heightened risk of gender-based violence in neighbouring communities," that the heightened risk of such violence does affect Charter values and rights, and that the state has a duty to prevent violence against women and girls. The judge further clarified there is a “nexus between greenlighting the Floatel proposal and a heightened risk of gender-based violence.” (paragraph 48)
The judge also states that "I accept that international law requires states to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. I also accept that the duty to protect translates into a standard of due diligence to prevent acts of violence against women and girls." (paragraph 63)
The judge ruled that, in this case, there was not enough evidence to demonstrate that the conditions imposed by the Provincial Government are not adequate to prevent gender-based violence (paragraphs 47–60).
Judicial reviews are limited to evidence that was before the decision-maker at the time of the decision. Because the floatel was not in place at the time we filed and because there was no comment period, we had no opportunity to collect or present evidence to show that the conditions are not adequate to prevent gender-based violence.
With the floatel in operation for over a year now, we can start gathering evidence to hold Woodfibre LNG accountable to their permits. This will be important now that Woodfibre LNG has applied for a second floating workcamp so we can submit this evidence to the regulators.
We lost on procedural fairness
Despite being told repeatedly that a public comment period on the floating workcamp would be hosted by the Federal government, the judge has ruled that section 69 of IAA 2019 overrides the common law doctrine of "procedural fairness" (paragraphs 67–76).
The key learning here is not to wait for a public comment period to make submissions. If there are issues or concerns about a project, we need to submit them to the regulator immediately to get them on the record.
CEAA 2012 vs IAA 2019? The law is now clear
Woodfibre LNG was the second major project in BC to be granted approval following a “one project, one assessment” approach that allows the Federal government to substitute the BC assessment for its own. Further confusing this were the changes to legislation from CEAA 2012 to IAA 2019 which was then updated after the Supreme Court ruled that IAA 2019 was "largely unconstitutional."
The question here was whether or not the 2016 Federal Decision Statement for Woodfibre LNG needed to be amended, and whether the federal government needed to consider the narrower factors under CEAA 2012 (the old legislation that it was approved under) or more broad factors under the new Impact Assessment Act (IAA 2019).
The judge ruled that it was reasonable for the Federal Government to base its decision on CEAA 2012 (paragraphs 36–45).
Now we know which law applies, and we have a clear framework to provide input for Woodfibre LNG's second floating workcamp.
Heads up! Floatel #2 public engagement happening now
Woodfibre LNG has applied for a second floating workcamp for 650 workers, plus 250 workers to be housed in communities across the Lower Mainland (except Squamish).
After operating without a permit for more than a year, Woodfibre LNG has applied for a Temporary Use Permit from the District of Squamish for both floating workcamps. There will also be a public comment period through the Provincial Environmental Assessment Office for the second floating workcamp and worker housing in other communities.
Woodfibre LNG is hosting a Project Information Meeting on July 2, 2025 from 5:30pm to 7:30pm at the Garibaldi Room, Executive Suites in Squamish.
We'll keep you updated on how you can participate in both the local and provincial processes over the summer.
Donate to support our legal action fund
My Sea to Sky has partnered with the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association to overturn project approvals for Woodfibre LNG and FortisBC, and hold the Federal and Provincial governments to account.
Hundreds of people that love Átl’ḵa7tsem / Howe Sound have come together to crowdfund nearly $169,000 to support our legal action fund. Our goal is $200,000 so we can continue to file strategic lawsuits like this.
Can you chip in to help pay for legal fees, expert peer review, access to information, and dedicated staff time to support our legal actions?
Every donation will be triple-matched by two wonderful local families.
DONATE TO SUPPORT OUR LEGAL ACTIONS*******
The law is changed one step at a time. Please take a moment to celebrate these wins with us!
Thank you for standing with us to defend the precious ecosystems of Átl’ḵa7tsem / Howe Sound and stand up for human rights.
Tracey Saxby
Executive Director
My Sea to Sky
My Sea to Sky is incredibly proud and grateful to say that we rely on the My Sea to Sky community for small donations that provide the majority of our funding. Since our launch in 2014, we have been funded through personal savings, family and friends; and powered by the passion of our volunteers. Your generous contribution will help us to run our critical campaigns to defend, protect, and restore Átl’ḵa7tsem / Howe Sound. Can you chip in?