CANMORE – An ongoing lawsuit from the Stoney Nakoda Nation against the Town of Canmore and multiple provincial ministries will have Three Sisters Mountain Village Properties Limited (TSMVPL) added as a party to the court case.
An Aug. 22 decision from Judge Matthew Park in the Judicial Centre of Calgary indicated TSMVPL should be a party to the ongoing lawsuit after it was heard on Feb. 28 in Calgary.
“Three Sisters, as the owner and developer of property located on lands to which the ASPs apply, would seem to have a distinct interest from Canmore and the Crown, both of which are government entities,” the decision stated.
“I would also point out that the ASPs were only reluctantly approved by Canmore. … I am left with considerable doubt that Canmore will vigorously contest these proceedings.”
The lawsuit was filed against the Town and the Municipal Affairs and Indigenous Relations ministries for “purported failure to discharge certain constitutional duties said to be owed to Stoney Nakoda” to void the bylaws passing the Three Sisters Village and Smith Creek area structure plans (ASPs).
Neither the Town nor provincial ministries objected to TSMVPL’s involvement, though the First Nation opposed it being granted status as it “seeks to have the ASP bylaws voided and invalidated.”
“Given the relief sought by Stoney Nakoda, it would seem obvious that Three Sisters has a sufficient legal interest in the outcome of these proceedings and that its substantive rights are directly affected,” stated Park’s decision.
The First Nation launched a court application last December against TSMVPL’s two ASPs, stating it impacted Treaty rights and their ability to use their cultural and traditional lands.
“The Stoney Nakoda believe that the severity of the potential Treaty rights impacts resulting from the adoption of the bylaws require deep and significant consultation and accommodation, yet to date, no such consultation has occurred,” stated a press release from Stoney Tribal Administration last year.
An affidavit from Bill Snow, director of consultation with Stoney Tribal Administration, argued archaeological assessments completed were outdated and didn’t have the Nation as a participant.
“There are numerous historical cultural sites and gravesites along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains and the Foothills, the Stoney Nakoda have since time immemorial used and occupied the Canmore and Bow Valley corridor region for the exercise of their Treaty rights and traditional and cultural practices including, but not limited to, sustenance hunting, harvesting and gathering,” the affidavit stated.
The Nation has argued according to Section 35 of the Constitution Act, the Crown must consult with First Nations when their rights may be adversely affected. Snow argued this duty must be upheld by the province and the Town.
He said in his affidavit the Nation has never been consulted on the TSMVPL’s development, dating back to when the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) approved the company’s application to develop within Canmore in 1992.
Canmore council rejected both ASPs in 2021, but after appealing, the Land and Property Rights Tribunal (LPRT) ordered both plans to move forward since they aligned with the 1992 NRCB decision.
The Stoney Nakoda Nation had limited intervenor status at the LPRT hearings.
The Town appealed the LPRT’s decisions, ultimately having Alberta’s Court of Appeal order the tribunal’s decisions were valid.
Canmore council adopted both plans last October. The Three Sisters Village ASP received conceptual scheme approval in April, while Smith Creek’s conceptual scheme work is ongoing.
The decision stated work on the Village ASP conceptual scheme was more than $1.4 million and similar ongoing work for Smith Creek is about $1 million. It further noted more than $11 million has been spent on developing the two ASPs.
Park’s decision notes if the Stoney Nakoda only sought relief based on the “Crown’s honour and duties to consult and accommodate” he would “have no hesitation in concluding that Three Sisters does not have the requisite legal interest to be added as a party to the proceedings.”
However, by asking for the bylaws to be voided, it “distinguishes Three Sisters’ application” to be a party to the legal matter.
“While I take Stoney Nakoda’s point concerning the potential for appeal, this is simply an unintended consequence of Stoney Nakoda’s choice to attack the ASP bylaws now,” Park wrote.
Several environmental and conservation groups have also spoken out against the developments, arguing it will negatively impact wildlife habitat and the movement of animals in wildlife corridors.
“I am of the view that Three Sisters must be added as a party to ensure the protection of its interests,” Park wrote.
