the Presentation

Transcription

the Presentation

Aboriginal Law Update 2014:
Tsilhqot’in Nation (Roger William)
Aboriginal Law Group
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Charles F. Willms
Partner
+1 604 631 4789
[email protected]
Kevin O’Callaghan
Partner
+1 604 631 4839
[email protected]
Bridget Gilbride
Associate
+1 604 631 4891
[email protected]
Lawyers in attendance may be eligible to claim 1.0 hours of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) credit from
The Law Society of British Columbia, Le Barreau du Québec, and The Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario).
Please note that this seminar is not accredited for Professionalism Hours or New Member CPD Hours in Upper
Canada.
© 2014 Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. All rights reserved. The information provided here is not intended to be legal advice.
Many factors unknown to us may affect the applicability of any statement or comment that we make in this presentation booklet to
your particular circumstances. Participants should seek out legal advice on issues specific to them before acting. We would be
pleased to provide additional information on request. This booklet may not be reproduced.
02/07/2014
Aboriginal Law Update 2014:
Tsilhqot’in Nation (Roger William Decision)
July 2, 2014
Chuck Willms
Kevin O’Callaghan
Bridget Gilbride
OVERVIEW
1. Background
2. Supreme Court of Canada Judgment in
Tsilhqot’in Nation:
• What is the test for Aboriginal title?
• What rights do Aboriginal title holders possess?
• When can the Crown infringe Aboriginal title?
• Do provincial laws apply to Aboriginal title lands?
• How does the Forest Act apply?
• Consent through agreements.
3. Conclusion
1
02/07/2014
BACKGROUND – TRIAL
• Trial Decision:
• Released November 21, 2007 (2007 BCSC 1700)
• First decision regarding an extensive claim
for aboriginal title in Canada since Delgamuukw
• 339 days of trial starting in November 2002 and
stretched over 4 ½ years
• 458 page judgment
BACKGROUND
• Chief Roger William of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation
Government brought the claim on behalf of all
members of the Tsilhqot’in Nation:
• Xeni Gwet’in (Nemiah)
• Tl’esqox (Toosey)
• Tsi Del Del (Redstone)
• Tletinqox-t’in (Anaham)
• ?Esdilagh (Alexandria)
• Yunesit’in (Stone)
• Some members of the Ulkatcho First Nation
2
02/07/2014
BACKGROUND – TSILHQOT’IN CLAIMS
• Aboriginal Title
• To the entirety of specific tracts of land:
• the Trapline Territory
• the Tachelach’ed (Brittany Triangle)
• Together called the Claim Area
• Within the traditional territory of the Tsilhqot’in Nation
BACKGROUND – TSILHQOT’IN CLAIMS
• Aboriginal Rights
• Rights to hunt and trap birds and animals in the
Claim Area for ceremonial and subsistence
purposes and the right to trade pelts and skins in
order to earn a moderate livelihood
• Damages
• For infringements of Aboriginal Title
3
02/07/2014
BACKGROUND – ABORIGINAL TITLE CLAIM
• Area Claimed
• The Claim Area (coming up in yellow) consisted of
438,000 hectares in the Nemiah Valley, in the
Cariboo-Chilcotin area of BC
• Included within, but only a part of, what the
Tsilhqot’in Nation claims is their traditional territory
• Alternate Claim
• Advanced only late in argument and not pleaded
• Aboriginal Title to portions of the two tracts claimed
CLAIM AREA
4
02/07/2014
BACKGROUND – CLAIM AREA
• Area Claimed
• Cariboo-Chilcotin, BC
• The Claim Area (in
yellow) is in the
Nemiah Valley
• Alternate Claim
• Aboriginal Title to
portions of the two
tracts claimed
• Not pleaded
Tsilhqot’in Nation Claim
Area Within
Asserted Traditional
Territory
5
02/07/2014
BACKGROUND – PROPER RIGHTS HOLDER
TRIAL DECISION
• Proper holder of aboriginal rights was the Tsilhqot’in
community, rather than the individual bands.
• Trial judge concluded that although “is no legal entity
that represents all Tsilhqot’in people”:
[458] Aboriginal nations are characterized as such in the same way
that French speaking Canadians are viewed as a nation. Nations in
this sense are a group of people sharing a common language, culture
and historical experience. They are a culturally homogeneous
collective of people, larger than a clan, tribe or band... First Nations
are not nation states; they are nations or culturally
homogeneous groups of people within the larger nation state of
Canada, sharing a common language, traditions, customs and
historical experience.
BACKGROUND – PROPER RIGHTS HOLDER
APPEAL DECISION
• Court of Appeal:
• Affirmed that the proper holder of Aboriginal
rights was the Tsilhqot’in Nation, rather than the
individual bands
• Definition of the proper rights holder is a matter
to be determined primarily from the viewpoint of
the aboriginal collective itself.
NOT APPEALED TO SCC
6
02/07/2014
BACKGROUND – ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
TRIAL & APPEAL DECISION
• Sufficient evidence to support the claims
for Aboriginal rights:
• right to hunt and trap birds and animals
throughout the Claim Area
• purposes of securing animals for work
and transportation, food, clothing, as
well as for spiritual, ceremonial, and
cultural uses
• including the right to catch wild horses
• including trading furs and skins for
moderate livelihood.
NOT APPEALED
BACKGROUND – ABORIGINAL TITLE
TRIAL DECISION
• The Court concluded:
• Not able to find regular use in the entire area of
any of the discreet three parts that make up the
whole Claim Area (pleadings point)
• Sufficient evidence of use and occupation of a
smaller part of the Claim Area (190,000 ha.)
but, because of pleading issue, no declaration of
title could be granted.
7
02/07/2014
BACKGROUND – ABORIGINAL TITLE
APPEAL DECISION
• Reversed trial judge on the pleadings issue.
• However, claim at trial was a territorial claim. That
was wrong in law, aboriginal title is determined on
a site specific basis:
[230] … Aboriginal title must be proven on a sitespecific basis. A title site may be defined by a
particular occupancy of the land (e.g., village sites,
enclosed or cultivated fields) or on the basis that
definite tracts of land were the subject of intensive
use (specific hunting, fishing, gathering, or spiritual
sites). In all cases, however, Aboriginal title can only be
proven over a definite tract of land the boundaries of
which are reasonably capable of definition
BACKGROUND – APPEAL TO SCC
• Appealed to SCC:
• Aboriginal Title
• Application of Provincial law to Aboriginal
Title Areas
• Not Appealed:
• Pleadings issue.
8
02/07/2014
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA JUDGMENT
• Reasons - June 26, 2014 (2014 SCC 44)
• The judgment applies to all aboriginal title claims in
Canada (There are unresolved claims to aboriginal
title in every province in Canada)
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA JUDGMENT
• SCC adopted the findings of the trial judge
regarding Title
• Allowed the appeal
• Unanimously concluded that:
The Tsilhqot’in have Aboriginal title to
that portion of the Claim Area
identified by the trial judge as
exclusively occupied
by Tsilhqot’in
9
02/07/2014
TSILHQOT’IN
ABORIGINAL TITLE
LANDS
Title Area
Claim Area (outside Title Area)
Not Claimed
CLAIM AREA v TITLE AREA
• The areas:
• Claim Area: 4,380 km2
• Title Area: 1,900 km2
Claim Area = 5% of Tsilhqot’in Traditional Territory
Title Area = 2% of Tsilhqot’in Traditional Territory
• Population:
• Tsilhqot’in: 3,000
• Xeni Gwet’in: 400
10
02/07/2014
What is the test for Aboriginal title?
• Aboriginal title is based on occupation prior to the
assertion of sovereignty (date which changes
depending on the Province – In BC 1846).
• Occupation sufficient to ground title must be found
using the following three critirea:
1. Sufficiency
2. Continuity
3. Exclusivity
1. Sufficiency of Occupation
• Aboriginal title:
• is not confined to specific sites of harvesting or
settlement
• can apply to tracts of land regularly used for
traditional purposes over which an Aboriginal
collective exercised effective control
• Regular use of territories for hunting, fishing,
trapping and foraging can be proof of title.
11
02/07/2014
1. Sufficiency of Occupation
• In determining sufficiency, courts must give weight
to both common law and Aboriginal perspectives
• Intensity of land use required will depend on an
Aboriginal collective’s:
• Size;
• Nature of its seasonal round (i.e. nomadic, seminomadic, locally-rooted); and
• Characteristics of the territory claimed.
2. Continuity of Occupation
• Where current occupation is relied on as proof of
prior occupation:
• Aboriginal claimants must establish the temporal
link with “pre sovereignty times”
• Must be evidence of exclusive historic
occupation
• The aboriginal group must show that after
assertion of sovereignty it acted in a way that
would communicate to third parties that it held
the land for its own purposes.
12
02/07/2014
3. Exclusivity of Occupation
• Both common law and Aboriginal perspectives
• The territorial presence of other Aboriginal groups
will not bar a finding of exclusivity
• Claimants must prove “intention and capacity to
retain exclusive control” over the lands claimed.
3. Exclusivity of Occupation
• Could be demonstrated through evidence of:
• Granting or refusing requests for permission
• Treaties made with other Aboriginal groups
• Indigenous laws with respect to trespass
13
02/07/2014
What rights do Aboriginal title holders possess?
• Aboriginal title confers the following rights:
• Power to decide how the land will be used
• Enjoyment and occupancy
• Possession
• Economic benefits of the land (i.e. timber rights)
• Proactive use and management
Key limitation: Aboriginal use of title lands must be
consistent with the communal nature of the interest
vested in both present and future generations
When can the Crown infringe Aboriginal title?
Before Aboriginal title is proven:
• Potential infringements on claimed Aboriginal
title will be permitted if the Crown adequately
discharges its Haida duty to consult and, where
appropriate, accommodate
NOTE: applying Haida, the SCC found that BC had
breached the duty to consult in land use planning
and forestry authorizations.
14
02/07/2014
After Aboriginal title is proven:
• Crown has discharged its Haida duty
• If, after consultation, Aboriginal title holder does
not consent to the proposed development,
Crown must demonstrate:
• a compelling and substantial objective
• the action is consistent with fiduciary
obligations to Aboriginal title holder
Compelling and substantial objectives include:
• The development of:
• Agriculture
• Forestry
• Mining
• Hydroelectric power
• General economic development of the interior of BC
• Protection of the environment or endangered species
• Building of infrastructure
• Settlement of foreign populations to support those aims
15
02/07/2014
Consistent with fiduciary obligations means:
1. Respects nature of collective right:
• Infringement cannot substantially deprive future
generations of the benefit of title
2. Obligation of proportionality:
• Necessary to achieve objective
(rational connection)
• Goes no further than necessary to achieve objective
(minimal impairment)
• Benefits outweigh adverse impact
(proportionality of impact)
Do provincial laws apply to Aboriginal title lands?
• Provincial laws of general application apply, unless:
• they are unreasonable,
• impose a hardship or
• deny the Aboriginal title holders their preferred
means of exercising their rights (where such
restrictions cannot be justified)
• Court rejected inter-jurisdictional immunity (Morris
– SCC) in favour of justification analysis
16
02/07/2014
Do provincial laws apply to Aboriginal title lands?
Acknowledging the special role of conservation, the SCC
found that:
“laws and regulations of general application aimed at
protecting the environment or assuring the
continued health of the forests of British Columbia”
will likely not be an infringement and thus be of full
force and effect on Aboriginal title lands
How does the Forest Act apply?
Before Aboriginal title is proven:
“During this period, Aboriginal groups have no
legal right to manage the forest; their only right
is to be consulted, and if appropriate,
accommodated with respect to the land’s use:
Haida. At this stage, the Crown may continue
to manage the resource in question, but the
honour of the Crown requires it to respect
the potential, but yet unproven claims.”
17
02/07/2014
How does the Forest Act apply?
After Aboriginal title is proven:
“The issuance of timber licences on Aboriginal title
land for example — a direct transfer of
Aboriginal property rights to a third party —
will plainly be a meaningful diminution in the
Aboriginal group’s ownership right and will
amount to an infringement that must be justified in
cases where it is done without Aboriginal
consent.”
Consent through Agreement
Role of consent and agreements as a tool for
offsetting uncertainty relating to:
• Consultation
• Infringement or
• Justification
“I add this. Governments and individuals proposing to use or
exploit land, whether before or after a declaration of
Aboriginal title, can avoid a charge of infringement or
failure to adequately consult by obtaining the consent of
the interested Aboriginal group.”
18
02/07/2014
CONCLUSIONS
• Provincial laws continue to apply until aboriginal title is proven.
• Under Haida consultation the Crown must take into account the
economic aspect of aboriginal title.
• Provincial laws can continue to apply to aboriginal title land if:
• Haida test has been met
• Objective for that application is compelling and substantial; and
• Legislation and Crown action consistent with the Crown’s
fiduciary obligations.
• Aboriginal title will be very difficult to prove and, even when proven,
may be only a fraction (less than 2% in this case) of the traditional
territory.
• Overlapping claims in BC, unless resolved by First Nations, will be a
significant impediment to proof of aboriginal title.
Uncertainties
Two comments by the Court create potential uncertainty:
1.Para. 91: Before proof of title, “[w]here a claim is particularly
strong — for example, shortly before a court declaration of title
— appropriate care must be taken to preserve the Aboriginal
interest pending final resolution of the claim.”
2.Para. 92: After proof of title, Crown must reassess prior
conduct: “For example, if the Crown begins a project without
consent prior to Aboriginal title being established, it may be
required to cancel the project upon establishment of the title if
continuation of the project would be unjustifiably infringing.”
19
02/07/2014
OBSERVATIONS
• As with aboriginal rights, business and industry must take aboriginal
title claims into account when conducting activities on Crown land
• The Supreme Court of Canada emphasized consent of aboriginal
peoples as an answer to potential infringement claims.
• The present focus of business and industry on interest based
negotiations with First Nations must continue: Solely relying on
rights granted by the province will cost time and money and may not
be successful
• While First Nations and the Crown reconcile their differences,
business, industry and First Nations can continue to work together
constructively to achieve their common interests leaving court cases,
if any, to disputes between the Crown and First Nations.
20
BULLETIN
BULLETIN
Aboriginal Law
June 26, 2014
Landmark Ruling Declares Tsilhqot’in Hold Aboriginal Title
By: Charles F. Willms, Kevin O’Callaghan, Bridget Gilbride, Yael Wexler, Zach Romano (Student)
On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada released its widely anticipated decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014
SCC 44, providing more certainty on the test for Aboriginal title and the application of provincial laws to Aboriginal title lands.
In short, semi-nomadic or nomadic Aboriginal peoples may establish title to land they exclusively occupied. Prior to proof of Aboriginal title,
provincial laws of general application apply to claimed Aboriginal title lands but the Haida test for consultation applies. Provincial laws of
general application can apply to proven Aboriginal title lands if the application of the law can be justified under the Sparrow test.
Background and Trial Judgment
The Tsilhqot’in Nation are a semi-nomadic Aboriginal collective comprising individuals and families from Xeni Gwet’in (Nemiah), Tl’esqox
(Toosey), Tsi Del Del (Redstone), Tletinqox-t’in (Anaham), ?Esdilagh (Alexandria), Yunesit’in (Stone) and the Ulkatcho First Nation.
In 1989, Chief Roger William of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation Government brought a claim on behalf of all members of the Tsilhqot’in
Nation asserting Aboriginal title to the entirety of two tracts of land, Tachelach'ed and the Trapline Territory (collectively, the “Claim Area”).
The Claim Area encompasses 141,769 hectares of land in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region of the central interior of British Columbia, in the part
of the traditional territory claimed by the Tsilhqot’in Nation for which the Xeni Gwet’in are the caretaker. They also claimed for a declaration
of various Aboriginal rights in the Claim Area.
The trial lasted 339 days spanning almost five years and produced lengthy reasons for judgment, albeit much of the decision was nonbinding. In the end, the trial judge dismissed the claim for Aboriginal title due to a technical problem with the pleadings. His finding was
without prejudice to the Tsilhqot’in’s right to claim title for a portion of the Claim Area (and damages) in the future. As well, he granted the
declaration of Aboriginal rights, and found those rights had been infringed by forestry activities in the Claim Area, but did not award
damages for the infringement.
The trial judge also provided an opinion on the legal consequences of a declaration of Aboriginal title, had the declaration not been
precluded by the pleadings issue. The trial judge opined that provincial legislation would be constitutionally inapplicable to Aboriginal title
lands. In practical terms, British Columbia would have no authority to justifiably infringe Aboriginal title or to authorize timber harvesting on
Tsilhqot’in title lands.
With respect to the title claim, the trial judge accepted that a level of occupancy sufficient to prove Aboriginal title could be established over
broad tracts of land within the Claim Area (comprising 5% of their traditional territory) based on the seasonal movements of the Tsilhqot’in
throughout the territory (while attempting to repel others who sought to use the land) prior to sovereignty in 1846.
Court of Appeal Judgment
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision in all respects, but disagreed with the trial judge’s reasoning with respect to title, holding that
“Aboriginal title must be proven on a site-specific basis”. According to the Court of Appeal, the site-specific approach, paired with a broad
approach to defining rights, provides “a practical compromise that can protect Aboriginal traditions without unnecessarily interfering with
Crown sovereignty and with the well-being of all Canadians.” Since the Court of Appeal did not find sufficient occupancy to ground a title
claim, it declined to address the related issue of whether provincial legislation applies to Aboriginal title lands.
Supreme Court of Canada Judgment
Only the Court of Appeal’s finding with respect to Aboriginal title was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the related issue of
the constitutional applicability of provincial forestry legislation to Aboriginal title lands.
Adopting the findings of the trial judge, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and unanimously concluded that the Tsilhqot’in
had established Aboriginal title to the portion of the Claim Area identified by the trial judge as exclusively occupied by Tsilhqot’in.
1
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BULLETIN
Aboriginal Law
The judgment includes a number of significant findings outlined below.
Test for Aboriginal title
In Delgamuukw, the Court commented Aboriginal title is based on “occupation” prior to European sovereignty in the area. Applying the test
set out in Delgamuukw, three characteristics of “occupation” must be proven: it must be sufficient, it must be continuous, and it must be
exclusive. An Aboriginal claimant should not be forced into rigid application of common law concepts, and instead these characteristics “are
not ends in themselves, but inquiries that shed light on whether Aboriginal title is established.” (para. 32)
Sufficiency of Occupation: In determining what constitutes sufficient occupation, the court must look to Aboriginal culture and practices, and
compare them in a culturally sensitive way with what was required at common law to establish title on the basis of occupation. Occupation
sufficient to ground Aboriginal title is not confined to specific sites of settlement but extends to tracts of land that were regularly used for
hunting, fishing or otherwise exploiting resources and over which the group exercised effective control at the time of assertion of European
sovereignty.
Continuity of Occupation: For evidence of present occupation to establish an inference of pre-sovereignty occupation, the present
occupation must be rooted in pre-sovereignty times. This is a factual determination in each case.
Exclusivity of Occupation: As with sufficiency, the exclusivity requirement should be viewed from both common law and Aboriginal
perspectives, taking the context and characteristics of the Aboriginal society into account. The Aboriginal claimant group must have had
“the intention and capacity to retain exclusive control” over the lands (para. 47, citing Delgamuukw). The presence of other groups does not
bar exclusivity of occupation. The fact that permission was requested and granted or refused, or that treaties were made with other groups,
may show intention and capacity to control the land.
What rights does Aboriginal title confer?
Aboriginal title confers a number of rights on the title-holder: “ownership rights similar to those associated with fee simple: the right to
decide how the land will be used; the right of enjoyment and occupancy of the land; the right to possess the land; the right to the economic
benefits of the land; and the right to pro-actively use and manage the land.” (para. 73). However, the use of the land must be consistent
with the communal nature of the interest vested in both present and future generations.
Infringement of title
Once Aboriginal title is proven, government actions that impact the land, not consented to by the title-holder, are subject to the Crown’s
procedural duty to consult, and must also be justified in accordance with Sparrow, requiring (i) a compelling and substantial public interest
and (ii) conduct consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary duty. This final requirement entails that the incursion is both minimally impairing and
proportional in impact (its benefits must not be outweighed by its adverse effects on the Aboriginal interest).
Where Aboriginal title is as yet unproven, the Crown only owes a procedural duty to consult, and if appropriate, accommodate the unproven
Aboriginal interest. Once title is established, it is incumbent on the Crown to reassess its conduct and legislation in order to ensure its
fiduciary duty has been discharged.
Application of provincial laws to Aboriginal title land
The Court found the provincial government indeed possesses legislative power over Aboriginal title lands. In reaching this conclusion, the
Court expressly rejected its previous decision Morris, finding the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity will not apply to questions involving
Aboriginal title lands, but instead that the approach set out in Sparrow governs. As a result, provincial laws of general application apply to
Aboriginal title lands, unless they are unreasonable, impose a hardship or deny the Aboriginal title holders their preferred means of
exercising their rights, and such restrictions cannot be justified.
Pleadings
Also in this decision, the Court provides guidance on how to approach pleadings in land claims. The SCC agreed with the BC Court of
Appeal that a functional approach should be taken, overlooking minor defects where the pleadings nevertheless give parties and the court
the outline of the material allegations and relief sought. A technical approach to pleadings would undermine the goals of reconciliation
between the Aboriginal group and broader Canadian society.
Conclusion with respect to the Tsilhqot’in
Noting the trial judge found that the evidence supported sufficient occupation on the basis that there was regular and exclusive use of the
land, the occupation was continuous, and that the Tsilhqot’in expelled people from their land, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that
the Tsilhqot’in held title over the broad tracts of land identified by the trial judge as exclusively occupied by Tsilhqot’in.
In addition, the Court found by failing to consult with the Tsilhqot’in, the Crown breached its duty to consult in issuing licences permitting
forestry activity in the Claim Area before title was declared.
2
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BULLETIN
Aboriginal Law
Conclusion
This is a landmark ruling that will guide First Nations, government, and proponents in their dealings related to land over which title is
asserted for years to come. It confirms semi-nomadic and nomadic Aboriginal groups may be able to establish Aboriginal title, and once
title is established, government is required to justify any infringement. Prior to establishing title, the Crown’s duty to consult continues to
govern Crown-Aboriginal relations.
Contacts
Charles F. Willms
Leader
Vancouver
+1 604 631 4789
[email protected]
Kevin O'Callaghan
Vancouver
+1 604 631 4839
[email protected]
Paul C. Wilson
Vancouver
+1 604 631 4748
[email protected]
Peter Feldberg
Calgary
+1 403 261 5364
[email protected]
Anne Drost
Montréal
+1 514 397 4334
[email protected]
Neal Smitheman
Toronto
+1 416 868 3441
[email protected]
Jean M. Gagné
Québec City
+1 418 640 2010
[email protected]
Lucas Moalusi
Johannesburg
+27 11 586 6065
[email protected]
Tracy Pratt
Toronto
+1 416 865 4429
[email protected]
This publication is intended to provide information to clients on recent developments in provincial, national and international law. Articles in this newsletter
are not legal opinions and readers should not act on the basis of these articles without first consulting a lawyer who will provide analysis and advice on a
specific matter.
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP is a limited liability partnership and includes law corporations. Fasken Martineau LLP is a limited liability partnership which
is registered in England and Wales. Registered number: OC 309059. Registered Office: 17 Hanover Square, London W1S 1HU. Authorised and regulated
by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and subject to its Code of Conduct – http://www.sra.org.uk/
© 2014 Fasken Martineau
3
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHIES
BIOGRAPHY
Charles F. Willms
Partner
Vancouver
Direct Line: +1 604 631 4789
Facsimile: +1 604 632 4789
[email protected]
www.fasken.com/charles-willms
Areas of Practice
Aboriginal Law
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Antitrust/Competition &
Marketing
Chuck Willms is the Chair of the firm's Aboriginal Law Practice Group. He has considerable
experience in Aboriginal, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Commercial, Competition,
Constitutional, Construction, Energy, Forestry, Property Assessment and Mining matters. He has
appeared as counsel before the Property Assessment Appeal Board, Competition Tribunal,
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Yukon Supreme Court, Alberta Court of Queens Bench, Courts
of Appeal of British Columbia, Alberta and Yukon, Federal Courts of Canada and the Supreme Court
of Canada. He has extensive experience in alternate dispute resolution matters including
negotiation, mediation and arbitration.
Chuck is the chair of the Vancouver Specialty Litigation Business Unit.
Representative Experience
Construction
Corporate Social Responsibility
Law
Energy
Moulton Contracting Ltd. v. British Columbia, 2013 BCSC 2348
Counsel to Moulton Contracting in a case before the Supreme Court of BC granted judgment
against the Province after the trial.
Supreme Court of Canada rules self-help remedies an abuse of process
Counsel to Moulton Contracting in a case before the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that
resorting to self-help remedies such as blockades is an abuse of process.
Environmental
Forestry
Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Mining
Who has standing to advance claims of collective rights? Is it an abuse of process to use selfhelp remedies rather than seek remedies in court?
Counsel to Moulton Contracting in its application to strike treaty defences advanced by individual
defendants.
Education
Yukon court dismisses First Nation challenge to Selwyn project’s environmental assessment
Counsel to Selwyn Chihong Mining on the judicial review.
LLM,
Harvard Law School, Harvard
University, 1985
Upper Nicola Indian Band v. British Columbia (Environment), 2011 BCSC 388
Counsel for British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority
LLB, (Gold Medallist)
University of Victoria, 1979
In The Matter Of British Columbia Transmission Corporation Reconsideration Of The Interior To
Lower Mainland Transmission Project, BCUC Order G-15-11
Counsel to British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority
BSc,
Simon Fraser University, 1976
An Application by British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority for the Acquisition from Teck
Metals Ltd. of an Undivided One -Third Interest in the Waneta Dam and Associated Assets
BCUC Order G-12-10 Counsel to Teck Metals
Year of Call
Vancouver International Airport v. The Attorney General of British Columbia 2011 BCCA 89
Counsel to Vancouver International Airport Authority
Alberta, 1990
Yukon, 1983
Moulton Contracting v. HMTQ, 2009 BCSC 913; 2010 BCSC 506
Counsel to Moulton Contracting Ltd.
British Columbia, 1980
Klahoose First Nation v. Sunshine Coast Forest District (District Manager), 2008 BCSC 1642
1
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Charles F. Willms
Counsel to Hayes Forest Services Limited
Languages
Pope & Talbot cross-border insolvency proceedings
Counsel to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the court-appointed monitor and receiver
English
Komoyue Heritage Society v. British Columbia (A.G.), 2006 BCSC 1517
Counsel to Orca Sand & Gravel Ltd.
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 3 S.C.R. 550
Counsel to Business Council of British Columbia, Aggregate Producers Association of British
Columbia, British Columbia & Yukon Chamber of Mines, British Columbia Chamber of
Commerce, Council of Forest Industries and Mining Association of British Columbia
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia, 2004 3 SCR 550
Counsel to the Business Council of BC, BC & Yukon Chamber of Mines, BC Chamber of
Commerce, BC Wildlife Federation, Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of BC and
Aggregate Producers Association of BC.
Husby Forest Products v. Minister of Forests et al, 2004 BCSC 142
Counsel to Husby Forest Products
Heiltsuk Tribal Council v. British Columbia (Minister of Sustainable Resource Management),
2003 BCSC 1422
Counsel to Omega Salmon Group Ltd.
Powerscreen of Canada (Western) Ltd. v. Powerscreen Int'l Distribution Ltd., [2003] 36 C.P.C.
(5th) 342 (BCSC)
Counsel to Powerscreen of Canada (Western) Ltd.
Gitxsan and Other First Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2002 BCSC 1701
Counsel to Skeena Cellulose Inc.
Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), [2002] 2
S.C.R. 146
Counsel to the Council of Forest Industries
Cherris v. Bosa Development Corporation, 2001 BCSC 228
Co-counsel at trial for the purchaser of a new, but overheated and uninhabitable, condominium
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010
Counsel to Skeena Cellulose Inc
Allard Contractors Ltd. v. Coquitlam (District), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 371
Counsel to Allard Contractors Ltd.
Air Canada v. British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1161
Counsel to Air Canada
Canadian Pacific Airlines v. British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1133
Counsel to Air Canada
Patriation Reference [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753
Counsel to British Columbia
Presentations
Aboriginal Law Update 2014: Tsilhqot'in Nation (Roger William Decision), Aboriginal Law
Seminar, July 2, 2014
Who are the Rights Holders and Who Can Consult on Their Behalf?, PBLI, Aboriginal Law 2014
Current Issues Forum, May 28-29, 2014
Key Legal Cases in Canada: the current landscape, Speaker, PDAC Aboriginal Program,
March 4, 2014
2
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Charles F. Willms
Fasken Martineau Symposium 2013 - Vancouver, Fasken Martineau Symposium 2013 Vancouver, October 30, 2013
Aboriginal Law Update 2013, Aboriginal Law Group, May 31, 2013
Aboriginal Law Update - September 28, 2012, Aboriginal Law Seminar, September 28, 2012
Aboriginal Forum and Program at PDAC Convention 2012, PDAC, March 4-7, 2012
Aboriginal Land Resource Management Forum, Insight, January 31 - February 1, 2012
Plan Nord: What Every Investor Should Know, Aboriginal Law, Global Mining, Government
Relations and Ethics, and Securities and Mergers & Acquisitions Groups, January 26, 2012
Aboriginal 2010 Update, Aboriginal Law Seminar, December 10, 2010
Law of Tendering: Implications of the Supreme Court of Canada decision
Tercon Contractors Ltd v British Columbia (Transportation and Highways), Construction Group
Seminar, April 16, 2010
Path to Cooperative Success, Increasing cooperation between companies and communities,
March 3, 2009
Tsilhqot'in First Nation v. British Columbia: The Immediate Impact and Next Steps, Pacific
Business & Law Institute, March 4-5, 2008
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, Fasken Martineau Seminar, January 11, 2008
Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada: Convention 2007, March 4-7, 2007
Forestry 2006: Industry Challenges and First Nations' Opportunities, November 23-24, 2006
Managing Aboriginal Consultations for Your Resource Company, Aboriginal Law and Global
Mining Groups Seminar, October 13, 2006
2nd Annual Aboriginal Consultation Conference, The Canadian Institute, June 28-29, 2006
Northern Mine Reclamation Management Conference, May 29-30, 2006
Chinese Civil Evidence Workshop, April 24 - May 3, 2006
BC Aboriginal Consultation Conference, The Canadian Institute, November 30-December 2,
2005
Changes in the Law of Tendering Since M.J.B., October 21, 2005
Publications
"Supreme Court of Canada Rules Self-Help Remedies an Abuse of Process in Behn v. Moulton
Contracting ", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, May 9, 2013
"Supreme Court of Canada Today Refused to Grant Leave to Appeal - Adams Lake Indian Band
v. Lieutenant Governor in Council et al.", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, April 11, 2013
"BC Court of Appeal Finds Municipalities Hold No Duty to Consult", Aboriginal Law Bulletin,
September 26, 2012
"The Court of Appeal for British Columbia Confirms that Consultation by the Province on
Decision to Incorporate Municipality Was Adequate", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, August 10, 2012
"Canadian Mining Law", From the Second Edition of the American Law of Mining, 2012
"William v. British Columbia, 2012 BCCA 285", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, June 29, 2012
"Supreme Court of Canada Grants Leave to Appeal in Collateral Attack Case", Aboriginal Law
Bulletin, April 11, 2012
3
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Charles F. Willms
"B.C. Court of Appeal Confirms That Allegations of Failure to Consult or Treaty Right
Infringement Should Not Be Advanced as a Collateral Attack on Government Instruments",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin, July 6, 2011
"The Supreme Court of British Columbia Confirms Province Must Consult on Decision to
Incorporate Municipality", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, March 10, 2011
"The Supreme Court of B.C. Confirms That Allegations of Failure to Consult or Treaty Right
Infringement Do Not Justify Self-help Remedies", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, April 2010
"Webcast: Ontario Mining Act Amendments", Joint seminar with PDAC covering Bill 137's
proposed amendments to the Ontario Mining Act, June 8, 2009
"Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, November 2007
"Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Provincial Ability to Justify Infringements of Treaty Rights: R.
v. Morris, 2006 SCC 59", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Charles F. Willms, Kevin O'Callaghan, and
Efrat Arbel (Student-at-Law), December 2006
"Ontario Court Restrains Mining Exploration as a Result of Failure of the Province to Consult with
First Nation", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, August 2006
"Alberta Court of Appeal Considers Duty to Consult in Relation to Private Land", Aboriginal Law
Bulletin by Kevin O'Callaghan and Charles F. Willms, April 2006
"Governments Must Consult on Treaty Lands", by Kevin O'Callaghan and Chuck Willms,
February 2006
"The Hupacasath Decision: Court Restricts Use of Private Land Pending Consultation Between a
First Nation and the Province", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, December 2005
"Recent Developments in the Duty of Fairness and Privilege Clauses", by Charles F. Willms and
Matthew Ghikas, October 2005
"Supreme Court to Tackle Claims of Aboriginal Rights to Harvest Trees", Aboriginal Law Bulletin,
August 2005
"Huu-Ay-Aht First Nation et al v. The Minister of Forests et al, 2005 BCSC 697", Aboriginal Law
Bulletin by Charles F. Willms, Joanna Mullard and Kevin O'Callaghan, May 2005
"BC Government Ordered to Consult with Musqueam on Golf Course Sale to UBC", Aboriginal
Law Bulletin by Charles F. Willms and Joanna Mullard, March 2005
"Court Orders Further Consultation on Skeena but Dismisses Balance of Relief Sought by
Gitanyow", Aboriginal Law Bulletin Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan, January 2005
"The Supreme Court of Canada Decisions in Haida and Taku: The Final Word on the Duty to
Consult", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan, November 2004
"Another Haida Decision with Significant Negative Implications for Business and Industry",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin, October 2004
" The Haida Nation vs. Weyerhaeuser Upcoming Supreme Court Decision and its Implications
for Aboriginal-Energy Partnerships and Joint Venture", by Charles F. Willms and Alison Kearns,
September 2004
"Two Aboriginal Cases from the Atlantic Provinces Accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan, May 2004
"The Husby Decision: Guidance for Statutory Decision Makers on the Duty of Consultation",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Charles F. Willms & Kevin O'Callaghan, February 2004
"The Heiltsuk Decision: A New Look at the Duty of Consultation", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by
Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan, September 2003
4
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Charles F. Willms
"Calculating Compensation for the 20% Reduction under the Forestry Revitalization Act ",
Forestry Bulletin by Charles F. Willms and Matthew Ghikas, June 2003
"The Skeena Cellulose Petitions: an Application of the Haida Decision", Aboriginal Law Bulletin
by Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan, December 2002
"Narrowing the Corporate Duty to Consult and Accommodate: Haida Nation v. BC and
Weyerhaeuser, Part II", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan,
August 2002
"KitKatla: Balancing Aboriginal Claims and Economic Interests", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by
Charles F. Willms and Holly Brinton, March 2002
"Third Parties Duty to Consult and Accommodate: Haida Nations v. BC & Weyerhaeuser ",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Charles F. Willms and Holly A. Brinton, March 2002
Memberships and Affiliations
Director, British Columbia Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (BCSSGA)
BC Roadbuilders and Heavy Duty Construction Association
Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada Member of Aboriginal Affairs Committee
(PDAC)
British Columbia Business Council - Aboriginal Affairs Committee
Rankings and Awards
Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory 2010-2014 for Aboriginal Law
Named as a “local litigation star” in British Columbia and a “litigation star” for Aboriginal law in
Canada by Benchmark Canada, 2013-2014
Chambers Global 2012-2014 for Aboriginal Law (Canada)
The Best Lawyers® in Canada 2014 for Aboriginal Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution
Lexpert® Ranked Energy Lawyers, Report on Business, October 2013
The Best Lawyers® in Canada 2011-2013 for Aboriginal Law
Named as a "Aboriginal law star" and "Competition litigation star" and as a "local litigation star"
for Aboriginal law, commercial litigation, competition and environmental law in British Columbia
by Benchmark Canada
5
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Kevin O'Callaghan
Partner
Vancouver
Direct Line: +1 604 631 4839
Facsimile: +1 604 632 4839
[email protected]
www.fasken.com/kevin-ocallaghan
Areas of Practice
Aboriginal Law
Africa
Anti-Bribery and Corruption
Corporate Social Responsibility
Law
Energy
Environmental
Forestry
Government Relations & Ethics
Mining
Kevin O'Callaghan is co-chair of our Corporate Social Responsibility Law Practice Group. Kevin
provides strategic advice on aboriginal, regulatory, environmental and other corporate social
responsibility (CSR) issues. While his extensive experience is focused throughout western and
northern Canada, he also advises a number of clients around the world. If unavoidable conflicts
arise during project development, Kevin appears before courts, tribunals and arbitration panels to
assist resource companies (e.g. forestry, mining, and oil and gas) on challenges to licenses by local
communities, non-governmental organizations and indigenous communities, as well as related
injunction proceedings. Kevin was counsel for a coalition of businesses at the Supreme Court of
Canada in the leading case on aboriginal consultation and accommodation (Haida Nation v. B.C.).
He has also appeared as counsel for an industry at the Supreme Court of Canada on a case
regarding aboriginal rights and human rights found in the Charter (R. v. Kapp).
Kevin's litigation practice also involves complex commercial litigation with a particular emphasis on
environmental issues. Kevin has advised clients on a myriad of environmental matters including
environmental assessment, cost recovery actions, off-site migration, ground water contamination,
and regulatory offences. Additionally, Kevin provides ongoing advice to resource companies on
obligations to First Nations and agreements with First Nations.
Kevin is a member of the Corporate Social Responsibility Committee of the Prospectors and
Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) and a member of the Corporate Social Responsibility
Committee of the International Bar Association. In 2012 Kevin received Lexpert's "Rising Star"
award, which recognizes Canada's leading lawyers under the age of forty.
Power
Renewable Energy
Advice on Advancing Transparency
Advice and strategic approaches to developing a transparency of payments to government’s
regime in Canada.
Education
Gwininitxw v British Columbia, 2013 BCSC 1972
Counsel to ARR Mineral Exploration and Alan Raven in dismissal of joinder application by
Gwininitxw.
LLB,
University of Western Ontario,
1999
BA,
Queen's University, 1994
Prairie Creek Mine – 2013 Permitting
Counsel to Canadian Zinc throughout the regulatory process, including the public hearings.
Ekati Diamond Mine - 2013 Water Licence Renewal
Counsel to BHP Billiton in its successful application to the Board for water license renewal.
Applications permitting new mines in Keno Hills Silver Mining District in the Yukon
Counsel to Alexco in providing strategic advice regarding their application for the a water license
and representing the company in the public hearing in front of the water board.
Year of Call
Yukon, 2010
Northwest Territories, 2006
Ongoing Environmental and Aboriginal Advice
Counsel to BHP Billiton Canada Inc in providing strategic advice on approach to environmental
and Aboriginal issues.
1
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Kevin O'Callaghan
The Yukon’s Open-Entry Mining System declared a breach of the duty to consult with First
Nations
Counsel to Yukon Chamber of Mines on the hearing of Ross River Dena Council v Government
of the Yukon, 2012 YKCA 14.
Languages
English
CSR Accountability for the Canadian Extractive Sector
Counsel to the Mining Association of Canada (MAC)
Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCCA 193
Counsel for the BC Salmon Farmers Association on the appeal of a BC Supreme Court decision
certifying a class action regarding a claim for damages linked with impacts on Aboriginal Rights
from the regulation of aquaculture in the Broughton Archipelago.
Kwicksutaineuk/Ah-Kwa-Mish First Nation v. Attorney General of Canada et al., 2012 FC 517
Counsel to Mainstream Canada in a judicial review confirming Canada's sufficient aquacultural
regime consultation.
First Quantum Minerals in second case before Canada’s CSR Counsellor closes
Advised the First Quantum Minerals on second ever request before the CSR Counsellor.
Transparency and Reporting of Payments by Extractive Companies to Host Governments
Counsel to PDAC in relation to the potential development of domestic regimes requiring
disclosure or transparency of payments from extractive industry participants and host
governments.
Recording of mineral claims in Yukon attracts a duty to notify First Nations
Counsel to Yukon Chamber of Mines on the hearing of Ross River Dena Council v. Government
of Yukon, 2011 YKSC 84.
Environmental Assessment Process – public hearing
Counsel to Canadian Zinc throughout the environmental assessment process for the Prairie
Creek Mine public hearing.
Yukon court dismisses First Nation challenge to Selwyn project’s environmental assessment
Counsel to Selwyn Chihong Mining on the judicial review.
Hydro-electric Expansion Project
Advised Industry proponent regarding Environmental Assessment and Aboriginal Issues
Yukon Water Licence Hearing
Appeared before the Yukon Water Board
2009-2011 Interim Closure and Reclamation Plan (ICRP) approval process
Counsel for Ekati in the public hearings associated with approval of the Interim Closure and
Reclamation Plan (ICRP).
Ekati Diamond Mine - 2009 Water Licence Amalgamation and Renewal
Counsel to BHP Billiton throughout the regulatory process, including the public hearings.
Kaska and Hard Creek Nickel sign Traditional Knowledge Protocol - A 'Grand Slam' for First
Nation and mining firm partnerships
Advised Hard Creek Nickel Corporation
Kaska and Hard Creek Nickel sign Cornerstone Agreement
Advised Hard Creek Nickel Corporation
Suu Dii v. Roxgold and British Columbia (AG.)
Defense of mining company for an injunction application
R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41
Counsel to Atlantic Fishing Industry Alliance
Merit Mining and Osoyoos Indian Band achieve milestone Impacts and Benefits Agreement
2
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Kevin O'Callaghan
Advised Merit Mining Corp.
Environmental spill
Counsel to major resource company during the investigations following an unplanned release.
Provided advice on management of the issue as well as on-the-ground support to employees
being interviewed.
BC Supreme Court grants TELUS injunction against illegal protestors
Counsel to TELUS Communications as it obtained an interlocutory injunction against protestors
from blocking the road and from- preventing its installation of a fibre optic cable.
Komoyue Heritage Society v. British Columbia (A.G.), 2006 BCSC 1517
Counsel to Orca Sand & Gravel Ltd.
Permit the Prairie Creek Mine – Nahanni National Park Reserve
Counsel to Canadian Zinc
Dene Tha' First Nation v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board) and Penn West Petroleum Limited,
2005 ABCA 68
Counsel to Penn West Petroleum Limited
Ekati Diamond Mine - 2004/2005 Water Licence Renewal
Assisted on the application for a renewal of the Ekati Diamond Mine main site water licence.
Canadian Zinc Corp v. Mackenzie Valley Land & Water Bd., 2005 NWTSC 48
Counsel to Canadian Zinc Corporation
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 3 S.C.R. 550
Counsel to Business Council of British Columbia, Aggregate Producers Association of British
Columbia, British Columbia & Yukon Chamber of Mines, British Columbia Chamber of
Commerce, Council of Forest Industries and Mining Association of British Columbia
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia, 2004 3 SCR 550
Counsel to the Business Council of BC, BC & Yukon Chamber of Mines, BC Chamber of
Commerce, BC Wildlife Federation, Council of Forest Industries, Mining Association of BC and
Aggregate Producers Association of BC.
Husby Forest Products v. Minister of Forests et al, 2004 BCSC 142
Counsel to Husby Forest Products
Apsassin et al v. BC Oil and Gas et al, 2004 BCSC 92
Counsel to Vintage Petroleum Canada, Inc.
Heiltsuk Tribal Council v. British Columbia (Minister of Sustainable Resource Management),
2003 BCSC 1422
Counsel to Omega Salmon Group Ltd.
Gitxsan and Other First Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2002 BCSC 1701
Counsel to Skeena Cellulose Inc.
Haida Nation v. B.C. and Weyerhaeuser, 2002 BCCA 462
Council to Forest Industries, BC Chamber of Commerce, and Business Council of BC.
Arbitration of major mining transportation contract dispute
Nahanni Butte Dene Band v. Canadian Zinc Corporation, 2005 FC 1724
Counsel to Canadian Zinc Corporation
Defence of a financial institution regarding a duty to give financial advice
Advised and represented clients in environmental assessments under the different processes in
B.C. and the N.W.T.
Advised and represented clients in injunction applications regarding blockades and potential
3
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Kevin O'Callaghan
blockades by aboriginal protestors
Environmental remediation cost recovery action
Presentations
Overcoming The Barriers To Implement Free, Prior And Informed Consent, Latin American
Social Responsibility Forum, June 10-11, 2014
Free, Prior and Informed Consent: Is it Required and What’s the Standard?, Canadian Institute of
Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) 2014 Convention, May 11-14, 2014
Corporate Grievance Mechanisms: Where the Rubber Hits the Road on Business and Human
Rights, Global Mining Group Seminar - Breakfast (FMD at the PDAC), March 3, 2014
Corporate Social Responsibility as Risk Management: Why should rational, profit maximizing
managers invest resources and time in managing CSR related risks?, Corporate Social
Responsibility Seminar, February 21, 2014
Fasken Martineau Symposium 2013 - Vancouver, Fasken Martineau Symposium 2013 Vancouver, October 30, 2013
The Canada-Southern Africa Chamber of Business’ Acclaimed Risk Mitigation & CSR Seminar
Series, Corporate Social Responsibility Group Seminar, September 17, October 1 and
October 17, 2013
Emerging Issues in Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) law
group, May 9, 2013
Does Transparency Matter?, The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Event Series, PDAC
International Convention, Trade Show & Investors Exchange, March 5, 2013
Corporate Social Responsibility & Sustainability in Mining, Insight Information, December 3 - 4,
2012
58th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation,
July 19 - 21, 2012
7th Risk Mitigation & CSR seminar, The International Division of the MineAfrica Inc., June 7,
2012
Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC): Perspectives on what it really means, PDAC,
March 6, 2012
PDAC Primer, Global Mining Group Seminar, February 24, 2012
Aboriginal Consultation Update 2011, Aboriginal Law Seminar, September 13, 2011
57th Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation,
July 21-23, 2011
5th Annual Risk Mitigation & Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Africa and Emerging
Markets, Canada-Southern Africa Chamber of Business, April 2011
Mining, People, and the Environment, International Council on Mining and Metals, March 5, 2011
Aboriginal 2010 Update, Aboriginal Law Seminar, December 10, 2010
Aboriginal Law 2009: How Recent Case Law Will Impact Engagement with First Nations, Fasken
Martineau Aboriginal Law Group Seminar, November 27, 2009
4
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Kevin O'Callaghan
Aboriginal Consultation for Industry North of 60, The Canadian Institute, October 27-28, 2009
Obtaining and Securing Project Approvals North of 60, The Canadian Institute, April 1-3, 2009
Environmental Law & Regulation North of 60, The Canadian Institute, November 13-14, 2008
Mine Feasibility & Project Implementation, The Canadian Institute, October 16-17, 2008
Aboriginal Consultation for Industry North of 60, The Canadian Institute, October 1-2, 2008
Aboriginal Law Seminar, Vancouver, September 19, 2008
Managing Construction Projects - BC, The Canadian Institute, May 13-14, 2008
The Canadian Institute Presents: Obtaining Project Approvals North of 60 , Understanding Land
and Water Regulation in Canada's Territories, April 16-17, 2008
Canadian Institute's Aboriginal Law & Consultation, February 12-13, 2008
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, Fasken Martineau Seminar, January 11, 2008
The Canadian Institute Conference: Environmental Law and Regulation: North of 60, November
15-16, 2007
Northern Mine Reclamation Management, September 11-12, 2007
4th Annual Aboriginal Consultation Conference, June 18-19, 2007
Drinking Water Management in British Columbia, June 5-6, 2007
Defining Consultation, Canadian Institute, June 2006
Understanding the Context of the SCC decision in Mikisew, PBLI, May 2006
BC Aboriginal Consultation Conference, The Canadian Institute, November 30-December 2,
2005
Aboriginal Consultation: Outstanding Issues: Where are we going?, Canadian Institute,
November 2005
Relationship Building: The Use of Accommodation Agreements by Industry, B.C. Aboriginal
Consultation for Industry, Canadian Institute, November 2005
Aboriginal Consultation Panel, Canadian Institute, May 2005
The SCC decisions in Haida and Taku, The SCC decisions in Haida and Taku, Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Yellowknife, December 2004
Consultation & Accommodation: Local Government Obligations and Mitigation Strategies,
September 2004
Publications
"Consultation on Jumbo Reasonable Despite Claims of Spiritual Impacts", Aboriginal Law
Bulletin, April 25, 2014
"SCC to Deal With Enforcement of Foreign Environmental Harm Awards in Canada", Corporate
Social Responsibility Law Bulletin, April 23, 2014
"Canada Considering Government Payment Disclosure", Corporate Social Responsibility Law
Bulletin, March 13, 2014
"Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Leave to Appeal in Louis", Aboriginal Law Bulletin,
February 2014
"Resource Revenue Transparency Report Released", Corporate Social Responsibility Law
Bulletin, January 21, 2014
5
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Kevin O'Callaghan
"Company Convinces BC Court to Send Morrison Project Back to the Ministers", Environmental
Bulletin, December 12, 2013
"International progress on resource extraction transparency", Co-author, Volume 1 No. 1 of the
Corporate Social Responsibility News newsletter, December 2013
"Canada’s Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor", Coauthored, Volume 1 No. 1 of the Corporate Social Responsibility News newsletter, December
2013
"BC Court of Appeal Agrees that Consultation on Mine Expansion was Adequate", Aboriginal
Law Bulletin, October 1, 2013
"Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Leave to Appeal in Ross River Dena Council", Aboriginal
Law Bulletin, September 19, 2013
"Yukon Seeking Feedback by July 31, 2013 on Proposed Amendments to the Quartz Mining Act
and Placer Mining Act", Mining and Aboriginal Law Bulletin, July 12, 2013
"BC Court of Appeal Reconsiders Ahousaht and the Aboriginal Right to Harvest and Sell Fish",
"Getting the Deal Through – Mining 2013 - Canada", Law Business Research Limited, July 2013
"Global Overview, Getting the Deal Through – Mining 2013 - Canada", Law Business Research
Limited, July 2013
"International Progress on Resource Extraction Transparency", Corporate Social Responsibility
Law Bulletin, June 17, 2013
"SEC Provides Guidance on Conflict Minerals and Resource Extraction Disclosure
Requirements", Corporate Social Responsibility Law Bulletin, June 14, 2013
"Equator Principles III Approved", Corporate Social Responsibility Law Bulletin, May 17, 2013
"Expect Extraterritorial Claims to Continue in the US and Elsewhere Despite Kiobel", Global
Energy Bulletin, April 24, 2013
"BC and Canada Agree to Single Environmental Assessment Process", Environmental Bulletin,
March 26, 2013
"Corporate Social Responsibility Executive Education Certificate Program in Cape Town, South
Africa", Corporate Social Responsibility Law Bulletin, March 27, 2013
"Yukon Court of Appeal Rules in Ross River Dena Council v. Government of Yukon ", Aboriginal
Law Bulletin, January 10, 2013
"Free, Prior, and Informed Consent: International Origins and Its Application in Canada and
Peru", Fifty-Eighth Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, 2012
"Bribery Laws: Protecting Your Good Name", Association of Corporate Counsel, December 2012
"Anti-Bribery and Corruption Planning: An Ounce of Prevention Beats a Pound of Cure",
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Review Newsletter, November 2012
"Morrison Copper/Gold Mine project refused Environmental Assessment Certificate",
Environmental Bulletin, November 26, 2012
"Australia Joins the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights", Corporate Social
Responsibility Law Bulletin, November 20, 2012
"SCC Denies Leave, Confirming Class Action Not The Right Choice For Aboriginal Rights
Claim", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, November 15, 2012
"Federal Court Affirms its Approval of Federal Aquaculture Consultation", Aboriginal Law Bulletin,
6
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Kevin O'Callaghan
October 26, 2012
"EU Parliament Proposes Transparency for Oil, Mining and Other Payments", Corporate Social
Responsibility Client Advisory, October 4, 2012
"McGill University and Fasken Martineau Create Corporate Social Responsibility Executive
Education Program", Corporate Social Responsibility Law Bulletin, August 30, 2012
"Conflict Mineral Disclosure Rules Adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission",
Mining and Corporate Social Responsibility Law Bulletin, August 28, 2012
"Extractive Sector Transparency – SEC Adopts Rules Under Dodd-Frank Mandating Disclosure
of Government Payments", Mining and Corporate Social Responsibility Law Bulletin, August 27,
2012
"Canadian Mining Law", From the Second Edition of the American Law of Mining, 2012
"Fisheries Act Amendments Come in Waves", Environmental Bulletin, July 20, 2012
"New Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Streamlines Assessment Process",
Environmental Bulletin, July 20, 2012
"National Energy Board Act Amendments Impose Timelines for Project Approval", Environmental
Bulletin, July 20, 2012
"Global Overview, Getting the Deal Through - Mining 2012 - Canada", Law Business Research
Limited, July 2012
"Getting the Deal Through - Mining 2012 - Canada", Law Business Research Limited, July 2012
"Rio+20: Defining The Future We Want?", Corporate Social Responsibility Bulletin, June 21,
2012
"Federal Court Upholds Consultation for NWT Land Use Permit", Aboriginal Bulletins, May 29,
2012
"Class Action Not The Right Choice For Aboriginal Rights Claim", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, May
10, 2012
"Canada's New Aquaculture Regime Consultation Approved by Federal Court", Aboriginal Law,
May 8, 2012
"Conflict Mineral Reporting – A Hidden Gem of the Dodd-Frank Act", Corporate Social
Responsibility Law Bulletin, May 3, 2012
"Mining Regulatory Landscape Changes in Peru: A State of Emergency?", CIM Magazine, Vol. 7,
No. 2, March 2012
"Bribery Laws: Protecting Your Good Name", Securities and Mergers & Acquisitions, April 19,
2012
"Supreme Court of British Columbia Confirms Municipalities Have No Independent Duty to
Consult with First Nations", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, April 12, 2012
"Second Case Before Canada's CSR Counsellor is Closed, Recommending Existing On-TheGround Dispute Resolution", Corporate Social Responsibility Bulletin, April 9, 2012
"Supreme Court of Canada sends Aboriginal fishing rights case back to Court of Appeal",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin, March 30, 2012
"Bribery Laws: Protecting Your Good Name Part III – Advice from a UK Perspective", Corporate
Social Responsibility Bulletin, March 19, 2012
"Bribery Laws: Protecting Your Good Name Part II - Litigators", Corporate Social Responsibility
Bulletin, March 1, 2012
7
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Kevin O'Callaghan
"Bribery Laws: Protecting Your Good Name Part I - Corporate Legal Counsel", Corporate Social
Responsibility Bulletin, February 16, 2012
"Bribery Laws: Protecting Your Good Name", Lexpert 2011 Guide to the Leading US/Canada
Cross-Border Litigation Lawyers in Canada, Thomson Reuters, 2011
"Corporate Social Responsibility: A Framework for Understanding the Legal Structure", FiftySeventh Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, 2011
"Key Environmental Assessment Success in the NWT", Aboriginal Law, December 20, 2011
"Recording of Mineral Claims in the Yukon Attracts a Duty to Notify First Nations", Aboriginal
Law, November 30, 2011
"Aboriginal Consultation for BC Mine Expansion Upheld", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, August 25,
2011
"Getting the Deal Through - Mining 2011 - Canada", Law Business Research Limited, July 2011
"Yukon Supreme Decides First Challenge to Yukon Environmental Assessment Board (YESAB)",
"Canada Finalizes its Consultation and Accommodation Guidelines", Aboriginal Law Bulletin,
June 20, 2011
"Proactive versus reactive: The importance of having a good CSR plan", CIM Magazine, May
2011
"BC Supreme Court finds that the duty to consult does not apply to historic or ongoing existing
impacts from previous works or decisions", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, April 5, 2011
"Duty to Consult Applies to Modern Land Claim Agreements: The Supreme Court of Canada's
Little Salmon Case", EnviroMation Newsletter, December 2010
"Duty to Consult applies to Modern Aboriginal Land Claim Agreements: The Supreme Court of
Canada's Little Salmon Case", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, November 23, 2010
"Supreme Court in Rio Tinto Confirms No Haida Duty to Consult Arising Only from Past
Infringements", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, October 29, 2010
"B.C. Court of Appeal Upholds Trial Decision Dismissing Lax Kw'alaams' Claim for Right to
Commercial Fishing Near Prince Rupert", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, January 2010
" Nlaka'pamux Nation Tribal Council v. Griffin ", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, September 2009
"Court of Appeal Holds That the Issue of Consultation Cannot Be Ignored By the BC Utilities
Commission", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, February 24, 2009
"Tzeachten and Gitanyow: Update on the Duty to Consult", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, October
2008
"Modern Treaties and the Duty to Consult: Little Salmon Revisited", Aboriginal Law Bulletin,
September 2008
"Federal Court of Appeal Clears Injunction Allowing for Sale of Federal Buildings in Sinclair
Centre Case", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, July 2008
"Supreme Court of Canada Upholds a Separate Opening in the Commercial Fishery for
Aboriginal Bands as Constitutional", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, July 2008
"Osoyoos Indian Band and Merit Mining Corp. achieve milestone Impacts and Benefits
Agreement", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, June 2008
"B.C. Supreme Court Dismisses Aboriginal Claim for Right to Commercial Fishery Near Prince
Rupert", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, April 2008
8
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Kevin O'Callaghan
"Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, November 2007
"The Chicot Decisions: Permit Set Aside in NWT Due to Exclusion of Aboriginal Group in Final
Stages of Regulatory Process", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, August 2007
"Court Provides Guidance on Complex Allocation in Recent Contaminated Sites Cost Recovery
Action", Energy and Environmental Law Bulletin by Kevin O'Callaghan and Samuel Li (Articled
Student), July 2007
"BC Hydro's 2007 Calls for Power: Considering Aboriginal Consultation", Energy and
Environmental Law Bulletin, June 2007
"Modern Treaties and the Duty to Consult: Little Salmon ", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Kevin
O'Callaghan and Katey Grist, June 2007
"BC Court of Appeal Reinforces the Reciprocal Duty on First Nations to Consult", Aboriginal Law
Bulletin by Kevin O'Callaghan and Katey Grist, June 2007
"Federal Government Introduces Modernized Fisheries Act ", Energy and Environmental Law
Bulletin by Rob Lonergan, Kevin O'Callaghan, and Alison Kearns (Articling Student), January
2007
"Supreme Court of Canada Recognizes Aboriginal Right to Harvest Timber for Non-Commercial
Use", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Larry Nelson, Kevin O'Callaghan and Alison Kearns (Student-atLaw), December 2006
"Supreme Court of Canada Rejects Provincial Ability to Justify Infringements of Treaty Rights: R.
v. Morris, 2006 SCC 59", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Charles F. Willms, Kevin O'Callaghan, and
Efrat Arbel (Student-at-Law), December 2006
"Federal Court Suspends Mackenzie Gas Project Joint Review Panel Hearings", Aboriginal Law
Bulletin, November 2006
"No Separate Standing on Consultation for Dissident Band Member and Incorporated Society",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Kevin O'Callaghan and Alison Kearns (Student-at-Law), October 2006
"BC Supreme Court Grants Injunction to Halt Mining Blockade", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Kevin
O'Callaghan and Efrat Arbel, October 2006
"Contaminated Sites - British Columbia", by Dennis Ryan, Kevin O'Callaghan and Matthew
Prescott, September 2006
" Chicot v. Paramount Res. Ltd. et al , 2006 NWT SC 30 – June 29, 2006", Environmental
Bulletin by Kevin O'Callaghan, July 2006
"Court Approves of Narrow Scoping of CEAA Environmental Assessment", Environmental Law
Bulletin by Kevin O'Callaghan, May 2006
"Alberta Court of Appeal Considers Duty to Consult in Relation to Private Land", Aboriginal Law
Bulletin by Kevin O'Callaghan and Charles F. Willms, April 2006
"Governments Must Consult on Treaty Lands", by Kevin O'Callaghan and Chuck Willms,
February 2006
"The Hupacasath Decision: Court Restricts Use of Private Land Pending Consultation Between a
First Nation and the Province", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, December 2005
"Court Restricts Use of Private Land Pending Consultation Between a First Nation and the
Province", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Kevin O'Callaghan and Joanna Mullard, December 2005
"Relationship Building: The Use of Accommodation Agreements by Industry", by Kim L. Wilson,
Kevin O'Callaghan and Joanna Mullard, December 2005
"Supreme Court to Tackle Claims of Aboriginal Rights to Harvest Trees", Aboriginal Law Bulletin,
9
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Kevin O'Callaghan
August 2005
"The Marshall and Bernard Decision: The Supreme Court of Canada Takes a Principled
Approach to Treaty Rights and Aboriginal Title", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Kevin O'Callaghan
and Joanna Mullard, July 2005
"Huu-Ay-Aht First Nation et al v. The Minister of Forests et al, 2005 BCSC 697", Aboriginal Law
Bulletin by Charles F. Willms, Joanna Mullard and Kevin O'Callaghan, May 2005
"Alberta Court of Appeal Dismisses Dene Tha' Appeal on Infringement of Rights", Aboriginal Law
Bulletin, February 2005
"Independent Aboriginal Labour Relations Code on an Ontario Reservation Found to be
Unconstitutional", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Kevin O'Callaghan and Lindsay Forbes (Student-atLaw), January 2005
"Court Orders Further Consultation on Skeena but Dismisses Balance of Relief Sought by
Gitanyow", Aboriginal Law Bulletin Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan, January 2005
"The Supreme Court of Canada Decisions in Haida and Taku: The Final Word on the Duty to
Consult", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan, November 2004
"Another Haida Decision with Significant Negative Implications for Business and Industry",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin, October 2004
"Two Aboriginal Cases from the Atlantic Provinces Accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan, May 2004
"The Mikisew Decision: The Federal Court of Appeal Says Consultation Unnecessary",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin, February 2004
"The Husby Decision: Guidance for Statutory Decision Makers on the Duty of Consultation",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Charles F. Willms & Kevin O'Callaghan, February 2004
"The Apsassin Decision: The Latest Word on the Duty of Consultation", Aboriginal Law Bulletin,
January 2004
"The Heiltsuk Decision: A New Look at the Duty of Consultation", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by
Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan, September 2003
" Utilities Commission Act Updated", Environmental, Energy and Natural Resources Law Bulletin,
June 2003
"Environmental Assessment and the Duty to Consult Aboriginal Peoples: the Taku River Tlingit
and Haida Decisions", by Kevin O'Callaghan, June 2003
"The Skeena Cellulose Petitions: an Application of the Haida Decision", Aboriginal Law Bulletin
by Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan, December 2002
"New Provincial Policy on Consultation with First Nations", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, November
2002
"Narrowing the Corporate Duty to Consult and Accommodate: Haida Nation v. BC and
Weyerhaeuser, Part II", Aboriginal Law Bulletin by Charles F. Willms and Kevin O'Callaghan,
August 2002
"Self-Reporting of Contamination Finds Foothold in B.C.", Environmental Law Bulletin, March
2002
Corporate Social Responsibility Committee (CSR), PDAC
Former Chair, Aboriginal Law Section, Canadian Bar Association (BC Branch)
10
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Bridget Gilbride
Associate
Vancouver
Direct Line: +1 604 631 4891
Facsimile: +1 604 631 3232
[email protected]
www.fasken.com/bridget-gilbride
Bridget Gilbride is an associate with the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Practice Group with a
varied practice in Aboriginal, energy, environmental and admiralty law, as well as general civil
litigation matters. In addition to assisting clients when disputes arise, Bridget also advices clients
through provincial and federal project approvals, including environmental assessments. She has
acted as counsel in the BC Provincial Court, BC Supreme Court, the Federal Court, and the
Supreme Court of Canada.
Areas of Practice
Aboriginal Law
Energy
Environmental
Education
LLB,
University of British Columbia,
2008
MSc, Mathematics
University of British Columbia,
2003
BSc (Hons), Mathematics
Queen's University, 1997
Prior to entering law school, Bridget obtained both a Bachelor's degree and Master's degree in
mathematics. While completing her Masters, she taught first and second year college and university
mathematics courses and received recognition from the University of British Columbia for excellence
in teaching. At law school, she received numerous awards for academic performance, and was
chosen by UBC and her Faculty to be the valdedictorian at her graduation ceremony. After law
school, Bridget completed a clerkship with the BC Court of Appeal before joining the firm for her
articles.
Gwininitxw v British Columbia, 2013 BCSC 1972
Counsel to ARR Mineral Exploration and Alan Raven in dismissal of joinder application by
Gwininitxw.
Supreme Court of Canada rules self-help remedies an abuse of process
Counsel to Moulton Contracting in a case before the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that
resorting to self-help remedies such as blockades is an abuse of process.
Presentations
Year of Call
Aboriginal Law Update - September 28, 2012, Aboriginal Law Seminar, September 28, 2012
Languages
Calgary Consultation Update 2011, Calgary Consultation Update Seminar, October 20, 2011
English
Aboriginal Consultation Update 2011, Aboriginal Law Seminar, September 13, 2011
Publications
"West Moberly Revisited", Aboriginal Law Bulletin
"Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Leave Application of Challenge to Nisga’a Treaty",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin, August 22, 2013
"Alberta Court of Appeal Adjusts Powley Test to Suit Nomadic Métis Peoples", Aboriginal Law
Bulletin, July 5, 2013
1
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Bridget Gilbride
"Supreme Court of Canada Rules Self-Help Remedies an Abuse of Process in Behn v. Moulton
Contracting ", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, May 9, 2013
"Damages Claim for Treaty Infringement From Cumulative Impacts Allowed to Proceed",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin, May 3, 2013
"Alberta Court of Appeal Finds Powley Criteria Apply to Métis Settlement Members", Aboriginal
Law Bulletin, January 22, 2013
"BC Court of Appeal Finds Consultation and Accommodation Under EA Process Reasonable",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin, November 26, 2012
"BC Court of Appeal Finds Municipalities Hold No Duty to Consult", Aboriginal Law Bulletin,
September 26, 2012
"William v. British Columbia, 2012 BCCA 285", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, June 29, 2012
"Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses Lax Kw'alaams' Claim for a Commercial Fishing Right",
Aboriginal Law Bulletin, November 10, 2011
"Duty to Consult Applies to Modern Land Claim Agreements: The Supreme Court of Canada's
Little Salmon Case", EnviroMation Newsletter, December 2010
"Duty to Consult applies to Modern Aboriginal Land Claim Agreements: The Supreme Court of
Canada's Little Salmon Case", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, November 23, 2010
"Supreme Court in Rio Tinto Confirms No Haida Duty to Consult Arising Only from Past
Infringements", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, October 29, 2010
"The Supreme Court of B.C. Confirms That Allegations of Failure to Consult or Treaty Right
Infringement Do Not Justify Self-help Remedies", Aboriginal Law Bulletin, April 2010
Law Society of British Columbia
Canadian Bar Association
Community Involvement
Team Canada (Women's Masters), Co-Captain, World Ultimate Championships 2012 (silver
medallist)
Team Canada (Mixed), World Ultimate Championships 2008 (gold medallist)
Access Pro Bono Volunteer Lawyer
2
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
BIOGRAPHY
Kevin O'Callaghan
Civil Litigation and Environmental Law Sections, Canadian Bar Association (BC Branch
Litigation and Environmental Sections, American Bar Association
Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada
Rankings and Awards
Canadian Legal Lexpert® Directory 2013-2014 for Aboriginal Law
Named as a “litigation star” for Aboriginal law in Canada and a “future star” in British Columbia by
Benchmark Canada, 2013-2014
Lexpert® US Guide - Litigation ranked for Litigation Lawyers to Watch, 2013
Lexpert® Ranked Energy Lawyers, Report on Business, October 2013
Recognized as a Lexpert® Rising Star: Leading Lawyer Under 40 in Canada, 2012
Community Involvement
Board Member, Pacific Parklands Foundation (2008 – Present)
Board Member, BC Bobsleigh and Skeleton Association (2010 – Present)
11
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
FACT SHEETS
FACT SHEET
Aboriginal Law Group
Aboriginal Law
FACTS
Chambers (2014) recognizes
our firm and members of our
team in the area of Aboriginal
Law in Canada
Benchmark Canada (2014)
ranks our firm as Aboriginal law
firm of the year
Canadian Legal Lexpert
Directory 2014 recognizes our
lawyers in the area of Aboriginal
Law
Best Lawyers in Canada (2013)
recognizes our lawyers for their
expertise in the area of
Aboriginal Law
The origins of Canada’s Aboriginal law are older than the country itself, yet it continues to change and
evolve in dramatic ways. The obligation of government to consult with aboriginal people, and industry’s
participation in the consultation, are important considerations in any resource or land development in
Canada. This has given rise to opportunities for aboriginal participation in resource and land
development and also to disputes where the terms of such participation cannot be resolved. We help
clients resolve Aboriginal legal issues to facilitate business and resource development in Canada.
Our Clients
We work with natural resource and energy companies, large and small businesses, all industry sectors,
all levels of government, First Nations communities and band councils, and individuals. Our goal is to
successfully complete business transactions with First Nations and resolve issues related to Aboriginal
rights and title, regulatory matters, and issues related to business, employment and governance.

Aboriginal Law Leaders – With a team of more than 30 lawyers coast to coast, Fasken Martineau
has one of Canada’s largest practices specializing in Aboriginal law. Fasken Martineau’s Aboriginal
law lawyers are recognized as leaders in the field.

Experience with Aboriginal Business Transactions – We have structured and closed key
business transactions involving Aboriginal groups and have fostered successful business
relationships with First Nations.

Experience with Landmark Case – We have represented clients in landmark Aboriginal law cases
including leading Supreme Court of Canada aboriginal law cases, such as Delgamuukw, Haida,
Taku, Kitkatla, Kapp and Behn, that have redefined aboriginal law to reflect modern circumstances.

Up-to-date insight – As Acts and Treaties are written and challenged, and new cases make new
law, we deliver timely comments and developments to our clients, keeping them apprised and
assuring them that their business operations remain compliant and effective.

Focus on results – We understand our clients’ goals. And we know how to navigate the sometimes
complex landscape of Aboriginal law to help accomplish your goals. This unique combination
enables us to offer you minimal risk and cost with maximum efficiency and expediency. Our goal is
to provide you with exceptional, yet practical, results.
Our Expertise
We are committed to understanding the business of our clients and finding appropriate solutions,
including:








VANCOUVER
[24Jun2014]
CALGARY
TORONTO
Advice on doing business with First Nations and Aboriginal businesses
Advice concerning development of reserves and reserve land issues
Consultation and accommodation assistance
Consultation protocols
Commercial Agreements including Impact and Benefit Agreements
Aboriginal Consultation Policies
Dispute Resolution on behalf of industry in connection with Aboriginal rights, title and treaty issues
Regulatory matters
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
FACT SHEET
Selected Experience
Representing TransCanada Pipeline Ltd. In relation to Coastal
GasLink Pipeline, a 900 km natural gas pipeline across British
Columbia linking to a proposed LNG facility at Kitimat, BC. The
work includes advice on aboriginal issues including consultation
and agreements with affected First Nations.
Represented the Government of Canada as Chief Federal
Negotiator and reached an historic agreement with the Crees of
Northern Québec to settle outstanding litigation, improve
implementation of the 1975 James Bay and Northern Québec
Treaty Agreement and provide a Cree regional governance
framework.
Representing TransCanada Pipeline Ltd. In relation to the Prince
Rupert Gas Transmission Project, a 1000km natural gas pipeline
linking to a proposed LNG facility at Prince Rupert, BC. The work
includes environmental assessment, advice on aboriginal issues
including consultation and agreements with affected First Nations.
Represented Moulton Contracting Limited in its claim for
damages against the Province for negligent misrepresentation and
breach of contract and against aboriginal persons for intentional
interference with contractual relations and conspiracy in an dispute
regarding Timber Sale Licences (TSLs) and a road permit within
Treaty 8 territory.
Represented BC Hydro in their application to the British Columbia
Utilities Commission (“BCUC”) for a CPCN for a 240 km 500 kV
transmission line (“ILM”) and any arising disputes with Aboriginal
groups.
Represented BC Hydro in an application by First Nations to quash
an Environmental Assessment Certificate for an alleged failure by
the Crown to consult in relation to ILM.
Represented Teck Metals in the sale of the Waneta hydroelectric
dam in Southeastern British Columbia to British Columbia Hydro
and Power Authority and managed Aboriginal issues arising from
the sale.
Represented Goldcorp Inc. in three years of negotiations with the
Crees of Northern Québec resulting in the signing of a landmark
Collaboration Agreement regarding the development and
operation of Goldcorp's Éléonore Gold Project .
Represented the City of Brantford in a dispute respecting
Aboriginal blockades and work stoppages within the city in which
the Ontario Superior Court granted our client an interlocutory
injunction prohibiting any interference or obstruction with
development projects in the City.
Represented FortisBC Energy related to a LNG storage facility
on Vancouver Island, BC. The work included structuring and
implementing a facility joint venture with the Chemainus First
Nation and Cowichan Tribes and obtaining approval from BCUC.
Advised Polaris Minerals Corporation in relation to creation and
operation of joint ventures with the Namgis First Nation (the Orca
Project) and the Hupacasath and Ucluelet First Nations (the Eagle
Rock Project) on Vancouver Island in British Columbia.
VANCOUVER
[24Jun2014]
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
Advised Terasen Gas in relation to completing Impact Benefit
Agreements with the Lil’wat First Nation and the Squamish First
Nation regarding a gas pipeline project in southern British
Columbia.
Advised Selkirk Metals Corp. in relation to completing a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Ahousaht First Nation
concerning the Catface Copper Project near Tofino, British
Columbia.
Advised Alexco Resource Corp. regarding completion of a
Negotiation Agreement and Cooperation and Benefits Agreement
with the First Nation of the Na-Cho Nyak Dun relating to the United
Keno Hill Project near Mayo, Yukon.
Advised Katabatic Power Corporation regarding various Impact
Benefit, Protocol and Commercial agreements with various Coast
Tsimshian First Nations relating to wind energy projects near
Prince Rupert and Kitimat, both in British Columbia.
Advised Adanac Molybdenum Corporation in relation to an
Impact Benefit Agreement with the Taku River Tlingit First Nation
for the Ruby Creek Project in northwest British Columbia.
Represented Platinex, a junior mineral exploration company, in a
dispute with a First Nation respecting proposed exploratory drilling
on Aboriginal traditional territory in Ontario. This is a civil action,
including injunction and contempt motions and an appeal, and
raises various Aboriginal law and constitutional issues.
Represented Frontenac Ventures Corporation, a junior mineral
exploration company, in connection with injunctions and contempt
proceedings arising from a First Nation occupation and blockades
in Ontario. Also represented Frontenac in a mediation,
consultation and the successful negotiation of Memoranda of
Understanding.
Represented Penn West Petroleum Limited before the Alberta
Court of Appeal where Dene Tha' First Nation appealed a decision
of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board refusing the Dene Tha'
standing to object to a number of well and pipeline applications by
Penn West. The appeal was dismissed.
Represented Canadian Zinc Corporation in regard to an
Aboriginal challenge to the land use permit sought by Canadian
Zinc to use a winter access road to Prairie Creek Mine. The
Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories ruled that Canadian
Zinc's permit application is exempt from environmental
assessment.
Represented Selwyn Chihong, a mineral exploration company in
the process of moving the Selwyn Project in the Yukon forward to
advanced exploration, in a dispute with a First Nation regarding
the environmental assessment of the advanced exploration
project.
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
FACT SHEET
Global Energy Group
FACTS
Energy
Chambers Global (2014)
recognizes our firm and members
of our team in the areas of Power,
Mining and Environment in Canada
and in Projects & Energy South
Africa and Africa-wide
Environmental, regulatory and economic concerns are driving forces for the energy industry. There is a
global movement to develop renewable energy projects and clean and green technologies. Energy and
natural resource projects face increasingly complex environmental assessment, permitting and siting
processes. The industry is also facing issues such as aboriginal concerns and social licence. At the
same time, carbon regulation is emerging as a leading energy and environmental issue worldwide.
Fasken Martineau’s Global Energy Group can help you navigate this myriad of issues. We have a
wealth of experience covering all legal aspects of the energy industry to provide you with
knowledgeable, strategic advice.
Chambers UK (2014) recognizes
members of our team for their
expertise in Oil & Gas
Who's Who Legal (Canada)
recognizes members of our team
for their expertise in the areas of
Environment and Energy
Legal 500 Europe, Middle East &
Africa (2014) recognizes our
lawyers for their expertise in
Projects & Infrastructure and
Banking and Finance
Legal 500 UK (2014) recognizes
our lawyers for their expertise
in Oil & Gas
Our Clients
We represent clients in all areas of the energy industry including power producers, industrial and natural
resource companies, utilities, manufacturers, project developers, as well as clients in regulated
industries including electricity generation and transmission, oil and gas exploration, transmission and
distribution. Clients count on our team to offer:

A full range of legal services – The energy sector requires a combination of legal skills, including
commercial law, environmental law, M&A, regulatory, capital markets, equity and debt financing,
project finance, and construction law. With over 100 members in our group, we are fully resourced to
advise across the energy spectrum from oil and gas, electricity, LNG, transmission and distribution,
renewables, financing and regulation, climate change and emissions trading.

Global reach – Energy developments are becoming more complex and increasingly
multijurisdictional in scope. With offices across Canada and in London, Paris and Johannesburg, we
can draw on specialist expertise both within the group and outside as required for a client’s need.
We can staff projects in an efficient and cost effective manner for our clients. Our multi-disciplinary
team can provide you with seamless service for all of your energy needs.

Industry knowledge – Meeting your business objectives requires more than knowledge of the law
and administrative procedures. Our in-depth understanding of energy markets, environmental issues
and regulatory regimes enables us to offer you efficiency, exceptional service and practical
solutions.
Legal 500 Canada (2014)
recognizes our firm for their
expertise in the area of Power and
Oil & Gas
Best Lawyers in Canada (2014)
recognizes members of our team
as leaders in Aboriginal, Energy
Regulatory Law and Environmental
Law
Our Expertise
Directory (2014) recognizes
members of our team for their
expertise in Aboriginal, Energy
(Electricity and Oil & Gas) and
Environmental Law
Expert Guides (Canada, Europe
& South Africa) recognizes our
lawyers for their expertise in
Energy & Natural Resources
Project Finance’s African Power
Deal of the Year 2013 winner for
the IPP Peaking Power Project in
South Africa
PFI Award’s African Renewables
Deal of the Year for the 50 MW
CSP Power Generation Facility in
Bokpoort, Northern Cape
VANCOUVER
[27Jun14]
CALGARY
TORONTO
Oil and Gas
 Upstream oil and gas
 Refinery and petrochemical
 Pipelines and shipping
 Oil and gas trading
 Siting and permitting
Power
 Power generation including large-scale
hydroelectric, run-of-river hydro, wind,
biomass, and fossil fuels
 Electrical transmission
 Power trading
 Project development, siting, and permitting
Climate Change
 Carbon regulation
 Emissions trading
 Domestic offset and CDM projects
Environmental
 Environmental assessment and project
approvals
 Environmental transactional advice for
energy M&A and financings
 Aboriginal consultation, impact benefit
agreements and joint ventures
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
Regulatory
 National Energy Board, utilities commission
and regulatory approvals
 Reliability standards
 Rate design and revenue requirements
 Government policy advice including
development of regulatory systems and
energy market structures.
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
FACT SHEET
Selected Experience
Oil and Gas
Advised TAQA on acquisition of three significant Canadian oil and
gas companies for aggregate proceeds of $8.5 billion.
Advised TSX listed Oando Energy Resources Inc. (OER), a
company focused on oil exploration and production in Nigeria, on
its private placement of units for proceeds of US$50 million.
Advised the Government of Quebec on all aspects of the joint
venture agreement with Corridor Resources Inc., Pétrolia Inc. and
Etablissements Maurel & Prom S.A. to appraise and potentially
develop hydrocarbon resources on Anticosti Island.
Advised Terasen Gas in the permitting, approval and construction
of a $400 million Southern Crossing natural gas pipeline project.
Advised Result Energy Inc. on the sale of producing petroleum
and natural gas assets to Marble Point Energy Ltd.
Advising Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on the 2800 MW
Lower Churchill Falls Hydroelectric Project, having a capital cost in
excess of $6 billion.
Advised the Africa Development Bank (AfDB) on the Draft of
Transmission Framework Agreement with respect to the financing,
construction ownership, operation and maintenance of an
Electricity Transmission Line between Tanzania and Burundi in
relation to the evacuation of power generated at the Rusomo Falls
power plant (80 MW) at the border of Tanzania and Rwanda.
Advising Arab Republic of Egypt and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
on HVDC Interconnection between the two countries in relation to
the preparation of project agreements.
Advised Addax Petroleum Corporation on its $8.3 billion sale to
Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production
Corporation.
Advised Mainstream Renewable Power in respect of two solar
photovoltaic and four wind projects (totaling approximately 600
MW) in which they were selected as preferred bidder pursuant to
Round 1 and round 3 of the South African Department of Energy’s
REIPPP.
Advised Reliance Industries Limited on pipeline procurement
related to its KG-D6 Gas project in India.
Representing Sithe Global in relation to its participation in an
African hydropower project, Uganda.
Climate Change
Advised a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management
Consortium, a consortium of Canadian energy and utility
companies, in connection with a variety of emissions trading
transactions including landfill gas recovery, agricultural soils,
geologic sinks and cross-border transactions.
Advising developers and sponsors on a range of fossil fuelled
IPPs, including Tsavo Power (Kenya), Kelvin Power (South
Africa), Lagos Power (Nigeria), Corby Power (UK), Coryton (UK),
Poolbeg (Eire), Ennore (India), Cirebon (Indonesia), Hadjiret
(Algeria), Mindanao (Philippines).
Advised a Canadian corporation vendor in the sale of Certified
Emissions Reductions (“CERs”) to a major American energy
corporation, resulting from a Clean Development Mechanism
energy project developed under the Kyoto Protocol.
Advised a renewable energy product developer in the
negotiation of (i) a landfill gas collection and combustion system
asset purchase agreement, (ii) the sale of the Certified Emissions
Reductions resulting from such landfill site project that was
approved by the Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board
under the Kyoto Protocol and (iii) the power right purchase
agreement resulting of a second landfill gas to energy project to
be implemented.
Power
Advised Teck Metals Ltd. in the $825 million sale of interest in the
450 MW Waneta hydroelectric dam and co-owners operating
agreement.
Advised the lenders (Investec Bank Limited, Nedbank Limited,
Development Bank of Southern Africa Limited, Absa Bank
Limited, Rand Merchant Bank, Sanlam Capital) on the financing
of the IPP Peaking Power Generation Projects (the 1,005 MW
greenfield open cycle gas turbine facilities in KwaZulu-Natal and
Eastern Cape, South Africa).
Represented ENERCON in connection with its participation in
project financings which exceeded $400 million for wind farms in
Canada, with an aggregate capacity of approximately 200 MW.
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
Advised Harrison Hydro Limited Partnership in a $500+ million
bond issue to finance the development, construction,
commissioning, operation and maintenance of six run-of-river
hydroelectric generating facilities in British Columbia.
Regulatory
Advised Nalcor Energy in the process of Regulatory Hearings
before the Quebec Energy Board with respect to the application of
the Hydro-Québec TransÉnergie Open Access Transmission
Tariff.
Lead counsel for British Columbia Transmission Corporation
(BCTC) on the design and implementation of Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission reciprocity tariffs and ongoing tariff
design. Counsel to BCTC in obtaining permits and approvals for
major electricity transmission projects (up to and including 500 kV
facilities).
Advised TransCanada PipeLines and Trans Mountain Pipe
Line Co., in the cost of capital proceedings before the National
Energy Board, which established the formula used to set the
return on equity for all federally regulated pipelines.
Negotiated the first regulatory approval of a PPA in South Africa.
Advising the Government of Guinea on restructuring its electricity
sector.
Advising the Government of Niger on the privatisation of the
National Electricity Company and sector reform.
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
FACT SHEET
Global Mining Group
Mining
FACTS
Chambers Latin America (2014)
ranks Fasken Martineau as a
Leading Canadian Firm for Mining
Projects in Latin America (Band 1)
and profiles three members of the
group
Chambers Global (2013) ranks
Fasken Martineau as a Top Firm
for Mining in Canada and a Top
Canadian Firm for Mining Projects
in Latin America and profiles six
members of the group
The Legal 500 Canada (2014)
ranks Fasken Martineau as a top
tier firm for Energy – Mining and
lists four members of the group for
expertise in Energy – Mining
Directory (2013) recognizes
Fasken Martineau for its mining
expertise, lists our Vancouver and
Toronto offices among the Most
Frequently Recommended
Leading Firms for Mining and
nominates twelve partners as
leading practitioners
Recognized by Who’s Who Legal
as a Star Firm for Mining Law in
2013
Winner of Who’s Who Legal’s
Mining Lawyer of the Year for
2010, 2011, 2012 and 2014
Winner of Who’s Who Legal’s
Global Mining Law Firm of the
Year award in 2005, 2006, 2007,
2008, 2009 and 2011
Mining transactions involve coordinating people, property and capital across different jurisdictions and
time zones. Whether you are at the exploration, development, mining or closure phase, need to secure
financing, or plan to acquire other companies, success depends on solid legal advice and experience.
Fasken Martineau’s Global Mining Group has an unparalleled international reputation in the industry.
We are consistently recognized as having more mining and mining finance experts than any other law
firm. Our merger with leading South African based firm Bell Dewar has created one of the largest firms
in Africa. With more than 150 years of mining industry experience, we structure transactions to promote
cross-border efficiencies, reduce exposure to political and regulatory risk and facilitate financing.
Our Clients
We represent exploration and mining companies, banks and brokers, investors and industry service
providers. We also work with governments on mining related matters, including advising more than 50
developing countries. Clients choose our award-winning team because we offer:

Industry expertise – We combine our knowledge of global equity, debt and M&A (private and
public) transactions with our extensive understanding of mine permitting, mining agreements
(including off-take, hedging, royalty, streaming, farm-outs, option and joint venture contracts),
investment stabilization agreements and mine closure and rehabilitation arrangements.

Mining contacts – Leading mining producers retain us regularly for M&A and mining transactions,
giving us a keen understanding of their long-term commodity outlooks, views on the developing
countries and other business insights. Our most active client base – investors, junior mineral
exploration companies, developers and junior/mid-sized producers – gives us insight into the
challenges of raising capital, exploring and drilling for new discoveries, permitting/building/expanding
mine operations, negotiating off-take arrangements and developing/implementing closure plans.

Access to financing – Our ability to make introductions to brokers and investment banks has
proven invaluable to our clients. We have acted for most of the world’s leading banks and brokers in
Canada, Europe and Africa. We are the only law firm to rank among the top ten law firms for
financings and new listings on both the TSX and the AIM Market. Our strong teams in Johannesburg
and Paris also facilitate transactions involving the JSE and NYSE Euronext.

Global reach – As the only law firm with offices in the world’s key mining finance centres – Toronto,
Vancouver, London and Johannesburg – we address the international dimensions that characterize
many mining industry transactions. Our Montréal, Québec City and Paris offices have extensive
experience in Francophone-Africa.
Our Expertise
Our core areas of mining expertise include:
 Capital market transactions, including IPOs
 Debt and equity finance, including project finance
 Mergers, acquisitions and dispositions
 Mining agreements, including option and joint venture agreements
We also offer deep, tactical knowledge of the mining industry on other related matters including:
 Corporate social responsibility (Aboriginal and community consultation)
 Project development, construction and operations
 Government negotiations and strategy
 Mine permitting
 Royalty creation and sale agreements
 Environmental compliance and closure
 Hedging and forward sales contracts
 Resource taxation
 Stabilization agreements
 Litigation and alternate dispute resolution
 Intellectual property
VANCOUVER
[24Feb14]
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
FACT SHEET
Selected Experience
Exploration
We regularly act on behalf of major, mid-sized and junior mining
companies on exploration agreements, options, earn-ins, farmouts, joint ventures and strategic alliances on properties
worldwide.
Project Development
We have extensive experience advising on all aspects of
development of mining projects, including delivery structures,
formulation of tenders and procurement. We advised De Beers in
relation to an EPCM agreement and project construction contract
in respect of the Gahcho Kue diamond project; BHP Billiton on
the negotiation of a multibillion EPCM contract and a shaft sinking
contract, both in respect of its Jansen Potash Project in
Saskatchewan; Alexco Resource on the construction of its
Bellekeno silver mine, Yukon; and Eldorado Gold on its
Efemcukuru gold project in Turkey.
Permitting and Closure
We have extensive experience with mine permitting and closure
plans, including acting for BHP Billiton in relation to its Ekati
Diamond Mine in NWT and Alexco Resource in relation to its
remediation and redevelopment plan of its Yukon, Keno Hill silver
district and Capstone in licensing its Yukon, Minto mine.
Aboriginal and Community Consultation
We have been closely involved in the evolution of the law in
Canada pertaining to the duty to consult with First Nations and
have acted for a number of mining companies negotiating
accommodation with First Nation groups to allow their projects to
proceed. We acted as co-counsel to Yukon Chamber of Mines in
relation to requirements for consultation with the Ross River Dena
Council. We advised Goldcorp in the negotiation of a landmark
mining agreement with the Crees of Northern Québec.
Project Finance
We have extensive experience in project financing and advise
both lenders and borrowers in mining projects. We acted for
Augusta Resource Corporation in the negotiation of a US$176
million agreement with a South Korean consortium to help fund
the Rosemont copper molybdenum project in Arizona; Orezone
Resources in agreements with Bayerische Hypo- und
Vereinsbank AG and The Standard Bank of Africa to increase
Essakane Project debt facility to US$330 million; and BNP
Paribas in respect of project financing facilities for various
Canadian-based mining companies.
Lending
We are extremely active in all areas of mine financing including
corporate credits and project finance mandates. Recent corporate
credit mandates include a US$2.0 billion financing of Silver
Wheaton Corp., a US$2.0 billion financing of Goldcorp Inc. and
a US$2.5 billion financing of Kinross Gold Corporation. Recent
project finance mandates include a proposed US$475 million
financing of Stornoway Diamonds (Canada) Inc. related to its
Renard project in Québec and a proposed US$350 million
financing of Torex Inc. related to its Morelos gold project in
Mexico.
VANCOUVER
[24Feb14]
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
Capital Markets Transactions
We act on behalf of issuers and underwriters in respect of
sourcing and supplying equity financing to mining companies on
the TSX, TSXV, Amex and AIM exchanges. Recent matters
include GMP Securities and Citigroup Global Markets on a
$202 million private placement of subscription receipts by Pacific
Coal Resources; RBC Capital Markets and Investec Bank on a
US$385 million equity and debenture offering; Uranium One on a
$260 million bought deal offering of convertible unsecured
subordinated debentures; and De Beers on a $1 billion rights
issue.
Mergers and Acquisitions
We have deep specific knowledge of mergers and acquisitions
transactions in the mining sector. Recently, we acted as lead
counsel to First Quantum Minerals in the successful completion
of its C$5.1 billion offer for Inmet. We advised AuRico Gold on its
sale of its Mexican gold and silver mines to Endeavour for US$200
million and its Ocampo Mine to Minera Frisco for US$750 million;
and IAMGOLD in its acquisition of Trelawney for C$608 million.
Royalty Transactions and Streaming
We have extensive experience in negotiating and documenting
mineral royalties and mineral streams, as well as in advising
companies in the business of acquiring and creating royalties.
Litigation and Alternate Dispute Resolution
We advise and act in respect of corporate and commercial matters
in domestic and international courts, tribunals and alternate
dispute resolution venues. We acted for First Quantum Minerals
in its successful resolution of proceedings against the Democratic
Republic of Congo before the International Chamber of Commerce
and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment
Disputes. We acted for De Beers Canada Inc. in obtaining and
facilitating the enforcement of an injunction against a blockade of
the road leading to the Victor Mine, erected by the Attawapiskat
First Nation.
Governmental
We regularly advise governments and have assisted the those of
the Ivory Coast, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo and
Djibouti in updates to their mining legislation. We regularly provide
advice to mining companies in relation to their dealings with
governmental authorities.
Intellectual Property
We are patent counsel to companies and individual inventors
developing new mining technologies, including providing advice on
obtaining patent protection worldwide and on commercialization
strategies.
Information Technology
We are counsel to numerous high profile international mining
companies on changes to information technology infrastructure,
including SaaS, global outsourcing arrangements, patents, IP
development, licensing and other commercial matters.
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG
VANCOUVER
CALGARY
TORONTO
OTTAWA
MONTRÉAL
QUÉBEC CITY
LONDON
PARIS
JOHANNESBURG

the Presentation

Transcription

Similar documents

to the event flyer.

Aboriginal Carving Empowerment Circle (ACEC)

Ledcor PDF - Minerals North

Yunna Boo-larng Service providers

Introduction to ledcor The Ledcor Group of Companies

Yunna Boo-larng Community Brochure

Walkin Birrarung - Cultural Development Network

2016 Aboriginal Economic Development Corporation Conference

Gossie the Goat - NSW Aboriginal Housing Office

Russ Rothney – Neechi Commons