Alberta again rules amended Canadian environmental law invalid
A majority of the provincial court finds Ottawa can still intervene too deeply in provincial projects.
The Court of Appeal of Alberta ruled on Friday once again that the central part of Canada’s Impact Assessment Act is unconstitutional. The court ruled by four votes to one that the federal law gives too much power over projects that fall mainly under provincial jurisdiction.
The ruling concerns the amended version of the Impact Assessment Act, the federal law governing environmental assessments of major projects. The court leaves the law intact for projects primarily involving federal undertakings, but declares the regime for designated projects outside that category invalid.
Alberta brought the case again after the Supreme Court of Canada declared parts of the original law unconstitutional in 2023. According to the country’s highest court, Ottawa could use the law to assess projects as a whole, even though many of those projects fall mainly under provincial jurisdiction.
The federal government amended the law in 2024. Among other changes, it tightened the provisions concerning federal effects and added a threshold for non-negligible adverse effects. In the new proceedings, Ottawa argued that this had resolved the constitutional problems.
The majority of the court disagrees. In the judges’ view, the federal executive can still conduct a broad balancing exercise in relation to a project that is primarily provincial. The decision can also affect matters that do not fall directly under federal jurisdiction, such as broader social, economic or sustainability considerations.
The dissenting judge reached the opposite conclusion. In that judge’s view, Parliament had taken sufficient account of the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in making the amendments. The judgment thus makes clear that Canada faces not only a jurisdictional conflict, but also a difference of opinion over how much scope federal environmental assessment requires.
For Alberta, the issue directly affects the development of oil, gas and mining projects and provincial control over natural resources. The province says it must be able to assess projects within its borders itself, while supporters of a federal role point to cross-border effects, climate risks, fish stocks and the rights of Indigenous communities.
The ruling does not mean that all federal oversight of projects will disappear. Assessments linked to federal lands, federal undertakings or other clearly federal powers remain possible, according to the court. Ottawa must, however, determine again how the law can be amended without once more exceeding the boundaries of provincial jurisdiction. For Dutch companies and policymakers, the case is relevant as an example of the tension between faster permitting, climate and nature assessments, and regional control.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Court of Appeal of Alberta again declared the designated-projects regime of the amended Impact Assessment Act unconstitutional, except for projects primarily involving federal undertakings.
- The majority consisted of four judges; one judge wrote a dissenting opinion.
- The case concerns the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces.
- The Supreme Court of Canada had already declared parts of the original law unconstitutional in 2023.
Left
Arguments A federal environmental assessment is necessary because the effects on nature, the climate and water do not stop at provincial borders. Ottawa must be able to intervene when projects affect fish stocks, Indigenous rights or the climate, even if a project appears economically local in nature.
Values Collective environmental protection, intergenerational responsibility, protection of Indigenous communities and equal minimum standards across Canada.
Consequences A limited federal role could lead to fragmented oversight, weaker protection and projects whose social costs are shifted outside the province.
Centre
Arguments Assessment should be divided according to the specific federal effect. Provinces can assess local projects, while Ottawa focuses on cross-border effects, federal lands, federal undertakings and clearly federal powers.
Values Constitutional predictability, cooperation between governments, effective environmental protection and an efficient permitting system.
Consequences A more precisely defined law can reduce legal uncertainty, but requires good cooperation and clear criteria to prevent gaps between levels of government.
Right
Arguments Alberta and other provinces must retain control over their own resources, economies and permitting. A federal government must not use a broad environmental assessment to decide in practice on projects that fall under provincial jurisdiction.
Values Provincial autonomy, subsidiarity, economic development and legal certainty for investors.
Consequences More room for the provinces could make projects quicker to implement and better serve regional interests, but could also lead to differing environmental standards and more difficult oversight of cross-border effects.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The legal core was checked directly against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta. The political and business consequences are described as possible consequences, not as established outcomes.
- confirmed On 9 October 2026, the Court of Appeal of Alberta ruled that the designated-projects regime of the amended law is unconstitutional, except for projects primarily involving federal undertakings. — This is stated in the conclusion of the judgment. source
- confirmed The ruling was delivered by four judges in favour and one dissenting judge. — The judgment contains four signatories to the majority opinion and a separate dissenting opinion. source
- confirmed The Supreme Court of Canada declared parts of the original law unconstitutional in 2023. — The new ruling describes the earlier decision and the subsequent legislative amendments. source
- confirmed Canada amended the law in 2024 in response to that earlier ruling. — This is stated in the judgment and in Alberta’s timeline. source
- confirmed A dissenting judge found that the federal amendments had sufficiently resolved the constitutional objections. — The dissenting opinion defends the authority of the Canadian Parliament. source
Editor's note
The date, the voting split, the scope of the ruling and the opposing positions on the court are certain. The precise consequences for current and future projects depend on subsequent steps by the federal government and any further proceedings.Sources
- Reference re Impact Assessment Act, as amended, 2026 ABCA 320 — Court of Appeal of Alberta
- Reference re Impact Assessment Act, as amended, 2026 ABCA 320 — Court of Appeal of Alberta
- Alberta’s response to the federal Impact Assessment Act — Government of Alberta
- Alberta Court of Appeal says Ottawa’s Impact Assessment Act is still unconstitutional — 650 CKOM
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „canada alberta”
- De Telegraaf — „canada alberta”
- AD — „canada alberta”