Court Challenges to Canada Energy Regulator or Governor in Council Decisions

The CER operates within a system of checks and balances. Our decisions are subject to independent and impartial judicial oversight, generally through the Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada, and the CER is bound to act in accordance with the court’s decisions.

As part of our commitment to transparency, we share information about challenges to the CER’s decisions and recommendations to the Governor in Council in the database below. Challenges to previous National Energy Board decisions and recommendations are also included. The purpose is to provide Canadians with up-to-date information about the status of these legal challenges, regardless of the outcome.

The following information includes the status of litigation, appeals, and judicial reviews related to the CER or Governor in Council decisions. Where possible, the database provides a link to an external third-party controlled website, such as the Court database or an online version of the decision. It does not include civil claims or judicial reviews of administrative decisions. The database is searchable by project name, parties or filing date.

Court Challenges

Project Name

Description of Challenge

Parties

Court Filing Date

Court and Docket Number

Summary

Midstream Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal the Commission’s Order MO-020-2021Westspur Limited
(RH-003-2020)
[Folder 3890510]

Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal the Commission’s Order MO-020-2021

Kingston Midstream Westpur Limited v. Secure Energy Services Inc. and Canada Energy Regulator

2021-08-04

Federal Court of Appeal
21-A-17

The Applicant applied for leave to appeal the Commission’s Order. Issues raised include jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and interpretation of the common carriage principle.

Kingston Midstream Westspur Limited (RH-003-2020)
[Folder 3890510]

Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal the Commission’s Order MO-020-2021

Kingston Marketing Limited v. the Canada Energy Regulator and Secure Energy Services Inc.

2021-08-05

Federal Court of Appeal
21-A-18

The Applicant applied for leave to appeal the Commission’s Order. Issues raised include jurisdiction, contractual rights and proprietary interests.

Kingston Midstream Westspur Limited (RH-003-2020)
[Folder 3890510]

Judicial Review of the Commission’s Order MO-020-2021

Kingston Marketing Limited v. the Attorney General, the Canada Energy Regulator and Secure Energy Services Inc

2021-08-06

Federal Court of Appeal
A-209-21

The Applicant applied for leave to appeal the Commission’s Order. Issues raised include jurisdiction, contractual rights and proprietary interests.

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project (EH-001-2017) [Folder 3116766]

Application to judicially review the OIC PC 2019-784 approving the issuance of Certificate EC-059.

Roseau River Anishinabe First Nation v. Attorney General of Canada, Canada Energy Regulator and Manitoba Hydro

2019-07-12

Federal Court
T-1141-19

The Application for judicial review was dismissed on 24 September 2021.

See 2021 FC 990.

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project (EH-001-2017) [Folder 3116766]

Application to judicially review the OIC PC 2019-784 approving the issuance of Certificate EC-059.

Long Plain First Nation v. Attorney General of Canada, Manitoba Hydro and Canada Energy Regulator

2019-07-15

Federal Court
T-1150-19

The Applicant applied to judicially review the GIC’s Order in Council and the certificate. Issues raised include consultation and participant funding.

The Application for judicial review was dismissed on 24 September 2021.

See 2021 FC 990.

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project (EH-001-2017) [Folder 3116766]

Application to judicially review the OIC PC 2019-784 approving the issuance of Certificate EC-059.

Chief Jim Major et al v. Attorney General of Canada, Canada Energy Regulator and Manitoba Hydro

2019-07-15

Federal Court
T-1442-19

The Applicant applied to judicially review the GIC’s Order in Council and the certificate. Issues raised include inadequate consultation and participant funding.

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project (EH-001-2017) [Folder 3116766]

Application to judicially review the OIC PC 2019-784 approving the issuance of Certificate EC-059.

Peguis First Nation v. Attorney General of Canada and Manitoba Hydro

2019-07-15

Federal Court
T-1147-19

The Applicant applied to judicially review the GIC’s Order in Council and the certificate. Issues raised include inadequate consultation and participant funding.

See 2021 FC 990.

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project (EH-001-2017)
[Folder 3116766]

Application to Appeal CER Decision [Filing C07776] regarding Conditions 3 and 15 of Certificate EC-59.

Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. The Canada Energy Regulator and the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board

2021-01-15

Federal Court of Appeal
A-17-21

The Applicant is seeking to appeal the CER’s 11 August 2020 decision regarding Conditions 3 and 15 of Certificate EC-59.

Issues raised include concerns about the interpretation of Condition 3, honour of the Crown and not holding a public hearing before making the decision.

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project (EH-001-2017) [Folder 3116766]

Application for Leave to Appeal CER Decision[Filing C07776] regarding Conditions 3 and 15 of Certificate EC-59.

Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. v. The Canada Energy Regulator and the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board

2020-10-12

Federal Court of Appeal
20-A-35

The Applicant is seeking leave to appeal the CER’s 11 August 2020 decision regarding Conditions 3 and 15 of Certificate EC-59.

Issues raised include concerns about the interpretation of Condition 3, honour of the Crown and not holding a public hearing before making the decision.

The Federal Court of Appeal granted the application for leave to appeal on 19 November 2020.

TCPL Mainline operations and maintenance activity

Statement of Claim

Aroland First Nation and Ginoogaming First Nation v. National Energy Board, TransCanada PipeLines Limited and Attorney General of Canada

2017-01-05

Ontario Court of Justice
CV-17-567115

The applicants seek, among other things, injunctive and declaratory relief and damages for alleged breach of constitutional obligations to consult and accommodate related to TCPL’s plans to conduct integrity digs and other work in NW Ontario.

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment motion on 30 July 2018. The Court concluded that the motion cannot be fairly and justly decided using the summary judgment process and would require a full trial.

Court Challenges to Canada Energy Regulator or Governor in Council Decisions Archive

Date modified: