COURT FILE NUMBER COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN JUDICIAL CENTRE REGINA APPLICANT PASQUA FIRST NATION SASKATCHEWAN MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF SASKATCHEWAN, and QUILL LAKES WATERSHED ASSOCIATION NO. 14 RESPONDENTS ORIGINATING APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENTS This application is made against you. You are a respondent. You have the right to state your side of this matter before the Court. To do so, you must be in Court when the application is heard as shown below: Where: Regina Court House Date: January 16, 2018 Time: 10:00 AM Go to the end of this document to see what you can do and when you must do it. PARTICULARS OF APPLICATION Background 1. This is an application for judicial review brought by the Pasqua First Nation ("Pasqua") against the Saskatchewan Minister of the Environment ("Minister"). 2. The application is made in respect of the Minister's decision dated September 8, 2017, to exempt from the Environmental Assessment Act ("Act") a water drainage diversion project proposed by the Quill Lakes Watershed Association No. 14 ("QLWA") which will connect two previously unconnected water systems with a 25 km drainage diversion channel, resulting in the -2drainage of polluted water from the Kutawagan and Pel Lakes into Last Mountain Lake and the Qu'Appelle River system (the "Project"). 3. The Minister's decision, purportedly made under s. 7.3 of the Act, consists of both a cover letter and enclosed "Reasons for Determination", and is attached hereto as TAB "A". Hereinafter, it shall be referred to as the "Exempting Decision". In the Exempting Decision, the Minister determined that the Project is not a "development" within the meaning of the s. 2(d) of the Act, and therefore requires no environmental impact assessment ("EIA") under the Act. 4. An EIA is simply a detailed environmental study, conducted by experts, designed to determine whether or not an undertaking will have serious environmental impacts, the extent of those impacts, and whether and how those impacts may be properly mitigated. 5. The Pasqua state that the Exempting Decision was made illegally, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the Act and fundamental principles of Aboriginal and administrative law, and therefore should be quashed. 6. The Pasqua, as downstream occupants of a reserve on the Qu'Appelle River who make use of the river system and a member of the Kinookimaw Beach Association Inc. which has an interest in the Last Mountain Lake Indian Reserve No. 80A, want the illegal Exempting Decision set aside and a proper EIA to be conducted so that they can be assured that the polluted waters will not adversely impact their environment or their health. Remedies Sought 7. The applicant seeks the following remedies/orders as against the Minister: a. An order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Exempting Decision; b. A declaration that the Minister, in making his Exempting Decision, failed to fulfil the Crown's duty to consult with, and accommodate, the Pasqua. -3c. A declaration that the Pasqua were denied natural justice and procedural fairness in the hearing that resulted in the Exempting Decision; d. A declaration that the Project is a development as defined under the Act; e. An order in the nature of mandamus requiring the Minister to treat the Project as a development under the Act, and more particularly requiring the Minister to ensure that the Project undergoes a proper EIA review and approval process under the Act; f. An order in the nature of mandamus requiring the Minister to afford the Pasqua proper consultation and accommodation, as well as natural justice and fairness in the aforesaid EIA review and approval process; g. An interim and interlocutory injunction enjoining the Project from proceeding until this application can be finally determined; h. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court deems just; and i. The costs of this application on a solicitor and client (substantial indemnity) basis. 8. The applicant seeks the following remedies/orders as against the Crown: a. Interim, interlocutory and permanent injunctions enjoining the Crown, including the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency, from granting any other permits, licenses or approvals for the con~truction or operation of the Project, until such time as the aforesaid EIA and approval process under the Act have been properly completed. Grounds for the Application 9. The applicant's grounds for making this application are as follows: a. Sections 2(d), 7.2 and 7.3 of the Act; and, b. Rule 3-49(1 )(g) of the Queen's Bench Rules. -410. Further, in making his Exempting Decision, the Minister: a. Failed to consult and accommodate the Pasqua, contrary to s. 35 of the Constitution Act; b. Failed to afford the Pasqua natural justice and fairness as required by principles of administrative law; c. Failed to correctly or reasonably interpret and apply the legally required tests and factors set out in sections 2(d) and 7.3 of the Act, resulting in serious errors of law and jurisdiction; d. Failed to fairly and objectively render the Exemption Decision and ignored essential criteria under s. 2(d) of the Act, resulting in a failure to preform his statutory obligations; e. Illegally failed to apply at all, and completely ignored, many of the legally required tests and factors set out in sections 2(d) and 7.3 of the Act, thereby failing to exercise the very jurisdiction which the Legislature directed him to exercise; f. Failed to consider relevant considerations; g. Considered irrelevant considerations; h. Based his decision on factual findings in the absence of any evidence; i. Unreasonably and illogically made legal and factual findings that were clearly contrary to the Minister's own admissions in the Exempting Decision; j. Unreasonably and/or in bad faith, made legal and factual findings that ignored, or were clearly contrary to, the legal test and facts as known to the Minister, demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of bias; -5k. Made conclusions with respect to many of the factors set out in s. 2(d) of the Act that were unsupported by any or adequate reasons, so as to effectively avoid meeting the test set out in section 2(d) and 7.3 of the Act; and I. Made such further and other errors of jurisdiction, law and fact as counsel may advise, and this Honourable Court permit. 11. The standard of review of the Minister's Exempting Decision is correctness, both in respect of the constitutional issue of the duty to consult and accommodate, and the key administrative law grounds noted above. This case does not hinge on any Ministerial interpretation of the Act, but rather on whether he simply failed to apply it. 12. In the alternative, if the standard of review is reasonableness, the Minister's Exempting Decision was unreasonable because it was devoid of adequate justification, transparency and intelligibility. Further, it does not fall within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law. Summary of Material Facts 13. A. 14. The applicant's summary of the material facts is as follows. Parties. The applicant, the Pasqua, is a "band" within the meaning of the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c 1-5, and an Aboriginal people within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. 15. Pasqua is a party to Treaty No. 4 and a First Nation occupying a reserve located along the Qu'Appelle River in Saskatchewan. 16. The respondent, the Minister, has statutory powers under the Environmental Assessment Act (the "Act") as described above, and is the statutory decision-maker in this case. -617. The respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Saskatchewan (the "Crown"), through the agency of the Water Security Agency, a Treasury Board Crown corporation under ' The Crown Corporations Act, 1993, is g~nerally responsible for the permitting and approval of water diversion projects in Saskatchewan that otherwise meet the requirements of the Act. 18. The respondent, QLWA is a legal entity established pursuant to The Watershed Associations Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. W-11, and the proponent of the Project as defined herein. B. 19. Standing. The Pasqua, as a First Nation occupying a reserve located along the Qu'Appelle River, the downstream water body that will receive the polluted drainage from this diversion Project, could be directly and physically impacted by the Project and the Exempting Decision. As a result, they have a direct interest in the Project and the Exempting Decision, and standing to bring this application. 20. The Pasqua are one of the seven Treaty 4 First Nations who comprise the Kinookimaw Beach Association Inc. which has an interest in the Last Mountain Lake Indian Reserve No. 80A (IR80A). IR 80A is a fishing station located along the shoreline of Last Mountain at Little Arm Bay. C. 21. Failure to Consult and Accommodate. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, enshrines the principles of the honour of the Crown and the duty of the Minister and Crown to consult with First Nations who may be affected by the Project. 22. The Minister had actual or constructive knowledge of Pasqua's Aboriginal and treaty rights. In fact, the Pasqua expressly asked to be consulted with respect to the Project. This request was ignored. 23. The Pasqua have a unique environmental knowledge of traditional land uses, the history -7of those uses, and the environmental changes that have taken place due to impacts of man and agricultural activities. Their knowledge was ignored. 24. The Minister's Exempting Decision may adversely affect the Pasqua's Aboriginal and treaty rights. 25. The Minister failed in his duty to consult and accommodate the Pasqua through informed and meaningful dialogue before making the Exempting Decision. As a result, the Exempting Decision is unconstitutional and should be quashed. D. 26. Denial of Natural Justice and Fairness Before the Minister can make an Exempting Decision under s. 7.3 of the Act, a project proponent must apply to the Minister under s. 7.2 of the Act, in the prescribed form and with all the materials and information that the Minister may reasonably require, for such a determination with respect to the proposed Project. Upon receipt of the application and upon proper consultation with the public, including First Nation groups affected by the Project, the Minister may decide whether the proposed Project is a "development" or "not a development". It is not clear whether QLWA applied for such an exemption. 27. According to the Exempting Decision, the QLWA submitted its Project proposal to the Minister along with the following supporting materials in 2017: a. Quill Lake Flood Mitigation Assessment- January 2015; b. Kutawagan Diversion Project Environmental Assessment - September 2015 c. Common Ground Drainage Diversion Design Report May 2017 d. Wildlife Considerations for the Quill Lake Flood Mitigation submitted on July 12, 2017; e. A record of engagement activities and letters of support provided by QLWA; -8f. Water quality monitoring date collected in 2017. The above documents were never provided to the Pasqua prior to the Minister making his Exempting Decision. They are still not publicly available. They are not on a public website maintained by the respondents, and the respondents take the position they can only be obtained through a Freedom of Information Request. 28. QLWA held town meetings that were open to the public between April and July 2017. However, during the meetings no Project proposal plans, none of the above documents, and no water quality/salinity numbers were presented. 29. Moreover, at no time during these town meetings did QLWA or the Minister advise Pasqua or the public generally that QLWA was seeking, or the Minister considering, exempting the Project from the Act under s. 7.3 of the Act. This fact was deliberately and dishonourably hidden from Pasqua and the public. 30. Pasqua was not: a. notified by the Minister about the Project proposal, plans or documents; b. provided with any Ministry review and analysis of said documents; c. advised of any discussions which may have been held between the QLWA, the Ministry and others, prior to the Minister making his Exempting Decision; d. permitted to participate beyond attending the town hall meetings; e. consulted by the Minister or QLWA on how the Project would affect Pasqua's unique Aboriginal and Treaty rights; or, f. given an opportunity to properly respond to the Project, or to the application to exempt the Project from the Act. 31. As a result, the Minister denied the Pasqua any opportunity to be heard or to meaningfully -9respond to the QLWA application for a determination under s. 7.3 of the Act. In so doing, the Minister committed an error of law and jurisdiction, and the Exempting Decision should be quashed. E. Further Errors of Jurisdiction Arising from the Minister's Reasons for Determination 32. Under sections 7.3 and 2(d) of the Act, the Minister was required by statute to find that none of the definitional requirements of a "development" set out in s. 2(d) of the Act, apply. 33. Under s. 2(d) of the Act, a development is defined in these terms: (d) "development" means any project, operation or activity or any alteration or expansion of any project, operation or activity which is likely to: (i) have an effect on any unique, rare or endangered feature of the environment; (ii) substantially utilize any provincial resource and in so doing preempt the use, or potential use, of that resource for any other purpose; (iii) cause the emission of any pollutants or create by-products, residual or waste products which require handling and disposal in a manner that is not regulated by any other Act or regulation; (iv) cause widespread public concern because of potential environmental changes; (v) involve a new technology that is concerned with resource utilization and that may induce significant environmental change; or (vi) have a significant impact on the environment or necessitate a further development which is likely to have a significant impact on the environment; - 10 [emphasis added] 34. The above requirements of s. 2(d) of the Act are in the alternative. Only one of the six factors need to be present for a project to qualify as a "development". 35. Through the commission of the numerous errors of law and jurisdiction referenced above under the heading "Ground of the Application", the Minister concluded that all six factors are absent, and therefore the Project is not a "development". In fact, it is plain and obvious on the face of the Minister's Reasons for Determination and the Act, that at least five of the six factors are present, and therefore the Project is clearly a development. 36. The specific errors of jurisdiction made by the Minister with respect to each factor, is now considered. a) Project will have an effect on any unique, rare or endangered feature of the environment - s. 2(d)(i) 37. In his Exempting Decision, the Minister concludes that the Project will not have an effect on any unique, rare or endangered feature of the environment - a conclusion that is directly and logically contradicted by the Minister's Reasons for Determination ("Reasons"). 38. On page 2 of his Reasons, the Minister admits that based on various assessments, survey and field observations for "rare or sensitive species", the Ministry has "identified multiple sensitive species identified [sic] in the Saskatchewan Activity Restriction Guidelines for Sensitive Species and/or species listed under the [federal] Species at Risk Act or the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada." 39. Further, he goes on to admit that these rare or endangered species will be impacted by the Project. The Exempting Decision imposes a condition that construction only occur between November 1 and April 1, in order to "minimize the potential interaction of project construction activities with sensitive species and help to avoid or minimize impacts of the project." However, - 11 the Minister's reasons state that this condition will only "help to avoid or minimize impacts" on rare or endangered species. They do not claim that the condition will eliminate all impacts. Thus, the Minister's conclusion that "This criterion is not met", is directly and logically contradicted by the very reasons which precede it. 40. Also, the imposed condition, and the Minister's Reasons, only consider the impacts from construction. They fail to give any consideration to the impacts from ongoing pollution, once construction is completed and the Project is operational. This is a failure to consider a relevant consideration, an error in jurisdiction, and unreasonable. b) Project will utilize a provincial resource - s. 2(d)(ii) 41. On page 2 of the Reasons, in reference to this factor, the Minister concludes that "The project does not involve the significant use of a provincial resource." No explanation or reasons are provided. This is an error of jurisdiction and is unreasonable. 42. Moreover, contrary to the Minister's conclusion in the Decision under b), the Minister cannot reasonably or rationally determine that there will be no utilization of a provincial resource by the Project, or that the utilization will not be "substantial" or "significant". 43. The Last Mountain Lake and Qu'Appelle River systems are provincial resources. The essence of this Project is to utilize these provincial resources in a manner in which they have not previously been utilized - as receptacles for diverted, contaminated water that is to be transferred to them from previously unconnected water bodies - the Quill, Kutawagan and Pel Lakes. Clearly this requirement of s. 2(d)(ii) is legally met. The Minister has simply ignored the test, and these provincial resources, thereby erring in law and jurisdiction, and acting unreasonably. 44. Furthermore, without a proper EIA to determine that the environmental impacts of draining this polluted water into a new watershed will be "insignificant", the Minister cannot so - 12 conclude. The Minister made this decision in the absence of any evidence, and failed to consider a relevant consideration, therefore exceeding his jurisdiction, and acting unreasonably. c) Project will cause the emission of pollutants - s. 2(d)(iii) 45. Also on page 2, in response to the third factor, the Minister's reasons abruptly conclude "The project will not create by-products, residuals or waste products requiring handling and disposal not regulated by another Act or regulation", and further, "This criterion is not met". As with the second factor, no explanation or reasons are provided. This is an error of jurisdiction, and unreasonable. 46. Moreover, the Minister's conclusion fails to consider the entire test under s. 2(d)(iii). It only considers whether the Project will "create by-products, residuals or waste products". It fails to consider whether the Project will "cause the emission of any pollutants". In so doing, on its face, it commits a serious error of jurisdiction, by failing to consider relevant considerations, and is unreasonable. 47. Had the Minister considered the entire test under s. 2(d)(iii), and asked himself the relevant question he was legally obligated to consider, he would have had undoubtedly concluded that the Project will cause the emission of pollutants, and therefore is a development. It is well known that the lakes to be diverted by the Project contain chemicals from agricultural use, and saline (salt), which are pollutants. Moreover, the proposed diversion from those lakes to the Last Mountain Lake and Qu'Appelle River systems, will inevitably result in the emission of those pollutants from one water system to another heretofore unconnected water system. What is unknown, is to what extent and with what environmental impact. 48. In fact, the Minister admits elsewhere in his Exempting Decision - in condition 2 of his cover letter - that the Project could have a "significant downstream impact" on water quality due to the emission of pollutants. There, he requires the proponent to adhere to any water quality - 13 and quantity limits and requirements that "may be identified when the Drainage Approval is issued by the Water Security Agency", so that "significant downstream impacts are avoided". Effectively, this is an admission that this Project will likely cause significant downstream water quality impacts, unless the WSA is able to control those impacts through the limits and requirements it imposes. 49. It is telling that the Minister only expects the WSA will be able to control "significant" pollution impacts, not all impacts. The test in s. 2(d)(iii) is the emission of any pollutants, not just "significant" emissions. Therefore, condition 2 does not avoid the triggering of s. 2(d){iii). 50. In any event, the Minister's conclusion, in condition 2, that the WSA will be able to control "significant" emissions, is made completely in the absence of any evidence, and is unreasonable. Without a proper EIA addressing this very issue, the Minister cannot possibly know whether the very limited controls available to the WSA will be sufficient to address the pollution impacts inherent to this Project. d) Project has already caused widespread public concern - s. 2(d)(iv) 51. On page 2 of his Reasons, under this factor, the Minister only mentions those members of the public who support the Project - the "stakeholders" and the "multiple rural municipalities" - stakeholders and municipalities which stand to benefit from having the Quill Lakes drained. The Minister even goes so far as to state that there is a "widespread concern associated with the status quo" among those supporters of the Project, due to "the current high water levels". 52. The fact that some members of the public want a project, does not answer or respond to the test under s. 2(d){iv). The test is not whether there is widespread public support for a project. It is whether there is widespread public concern because of potential environmental changes. Logically, both can exist at the same time. By basing his analysis on the wrong question, the Minister considered an irrelevant consideration, and his decision is contrary to the - 14 Act, without jurisdiction, and unreasonable. 53. That the Minister asks and answers the wrong question, is underscored by the fact that he makes no mention of, and in fact completely ignores, the widespread public concern and opposition to the Project for environmental reasons within those communities living along the downstream receiving water bodies that may be impacted from the chemical and saline pollution emitted by the Project. It is notable that such widespread public concern existed even though the Minister hid from the public the Project application documents and QLWA's application for an "exemption" under the Act. 54. Groups vocally opposed to the Project, and certainly deeply concerned about the pollution impacts from it, include the Last Mountain Lake Stewardship Group, the Calling Lakes Ecomuseum, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, a working group made up of people from Last Mountain Lake, Pasqua Lake, Echo Lake, Mission Lake, Katepwa Lake, Crooked Lake and Round Lake, the provincial NOP, and the Applicants herein. 55. The Minister was well aware of this widespread public concern and opposition to the Project before he made his Exempting Decision. He just ignored them. The Minister does not explain why in his Reasons. The ineluctable conclusion is that the Minister did so deliberately, in order to avoid having to conclude that the Project was a "development". In other words, the Minister appears, in his Exempting Decision, to be attempting to favour the proponent and those in support of the Project, giving them an exemption from completing a full EIA which could mean the end of the Project, while at the same time ignoring and prejudicing those who may be impacted by the Project. 56. In legal terms, the Minister's Reasons, on their face, demonstrate a lack of impartiality, independence and bias. The Minister is playing favourites with his political supporters. In the alternative, the Minister's decision fails to consider relevant considerations - the actual widespread public concern of which he was aware. In yet the further alternative, the Minister's - 15 decision is clearly contrary to the facts. For all these reasons, it is contrary to the Act and the law, without jurisdiction, and unreasonable. e) 57. Project will likely have a significant impact to the environment- s. 2(d)(vi) On page 3 of his Reasons, the Minister concludes that the Project will not have a significant impact upon the environment, based on three considerations. 58. First, he says that by requiring winter construction he will minimize construction impacts to sensitive wildlife species. As noted earlier, this is a red herring. The issue is not so much construction impacts, as it is the potential for ongoing chemical and saline pollution impacts from the operation of the Project. 59. Second, he claims that "based on the limited volumes of water proposed for diversion and the operational measure that will be required to monitoring and manage water quantity and quality being discharged, significant environmental impacts to the project area or downstream areas are not expected to result". This is the key issue. And yet the Minister reached this conclusion in the complete absence of any evidence. None of the reports submitted by the proponent for this Project (obtained after the fact of the Exemption Decision by Pasqua's expert) assessed the environmental impacts from the volumes of polluted water that would be discharged into the Last Mountain Lake and Qu'Appelle River systems. No EIA or environmental analysis of any kind has been done for this Project. Deciding in the absence of evidence is an error of jurisdiction, and unreasonable. 60. Had the Minister required QLWA to conduct any assessment of environmental impacts before he considered this factor, he would have undoubtedly concluded that it is likely the Project will have a significant impact to the environment, or certainly that an EIA is required to confirm there will be none. Pasqua's own expert, conducting a very preliminary assessment based on the limited data available, has concluded: - 16 a. Volumes. With respect to the volume of water, due to salinity and erosion, the "introduction of 7 million m3 of water could be expected to cause environmental effects as defined in the CEAA and the SEAA, particularly to fish and fish habitat, aquatic species, and potentially waterfowl, in both Peter Lake and Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife Area". A likely impact. b. Saltiness. With respect to the salinity of water, "there is sufficient difference in density of water between Last Mountain Lake and source waters to be transferred", that the waters of Last Mount Lake could fail to mix with the highly saline diversion waters, resulting in the lower portion of the north end of the lake being smothered by an isolated blanket of saline waters that could impact the benthic community and reduce oxygen levels, creating "unsuitable habitat for fish or even waterfowl". A probable or possible impact. c. Chemicals. While this is more of a remote possibility, " there exists the chance that the influx of sulphate (S04) associated with water from Kutawagan and Pel Lakes may favour production of methyl mercury (MeHg) within the LML National Wildlife Area ... a contaminant of game fish in the Qu'Appelle lakes and a human health hazard". A possible impact. 61. Whether or not the environmental impacts cited by Pasqua's expert are likely, probable or merely possible, is irrelevant. The key is that the risk of such impacts is real, and the Minister had no evidence to conclude otherwise, as he did. He made his decision in the absence of evidence. An EIA is needed to evaluate these risks and rule out the possibility of such impacts, and further to determine whether mitigation measures exist which could mitigate such impacts. 62. The third and final consideration of the Minister under this factor, is that "Additional drainage applications have been submitted to the WSA from local landowners. These applications "cannot be processed until an adequate outlet has been identified in the Quill Lakes - 17 basin". It is not clear what this reason means. However, the Minister appears to be expressing concern that unless he exempts this Project from the Act, thereby allowing "an adequate outlet ... in the Quill Lakes basin", other drainage applicants who stand to benefit from the Project will not be able to proceed with their own applications under other legislation. If that is the Minister's meaning, it is again a consideration that is completely irrelevant to the test under s. 2(d)(vi). The question under s. 2(d)(vi) is not whether the proponent, or supporting stakeholders or municipalities, or other applicants, want and need this Project. It is whether the Project will have significant impact to the environment. Again, the Minister has considered irrelevant considerations, rendering his decision contrary to law, without jurisdiction, and unreasonable. F. CONCLUSION 63. The Minister's Exempting Decision, although dated September 8, 2017, was not published or brought to the attention of the applicants by the Minister. Pasqua only became aware of it on October 27, 2017, as a result of publication of a CBC article. 64. On November 2, 2017, Pasqua's lawyer wrote to the Minister advising him of all of the errors of jurisdiction reviewed herein, disputing the Minister's conclusions in his Reasons, and requesting that the Minister reconsider same. 65. The QLWA has not commenced construction of the Project. It is appropriate at this time that this Honour Court should quash the Exempting Decision, direct that the Project undergo a proper EIA, and grant the injunctive and other relief requested herein, before the QLWA proceeds any further with the Project and causes irreparable and irreversible harm to the Pasqua and other downstream communities. 66. The Minister's Exempting Decision should be quashed and declared without jurisdiction due to the Minister's violation of the Pasqua's constitutional right to be consulted and accommodated. - 18 67. It should further be quashed and declared without jurisdiction due to the Minister's complete denial of natural justice and fairness to the Pasqua. 68. Finally, it should be quashed and declared without jurisdiction due to the multiple errors of law and jurisdiction committed by the Minister in his analysis of whether the Project is a "development" under s. 2(d) of the Act, and the unreasonableness of that analysis. That section only requires one of the seven factors to be present for a project to be a "development". Here, arguably six factors were present. However, by failing to apply the legally required tests, applying the wrong tests, considering irrelevant considerations, failing to consider relevant considerations, reaching conclusions without reasons, deciding in the absence of evidence, and acting upon apparent bias, the Minister erroneously and unreasonably concluded, contrary to the act and law, that none of the factors were present. G. 69. EVIDENCE In support of this application, the applicant relies on the following material or evidence: a. The Record of Proceeding herein; b. The Affidavit of Chief Matthew Peigan, sworn the 11 1h day of December, 2017; c. The Affidavit of Dr. Peter R. Leavitt, sworn the d. The Affidavit of Sherry L. Forsyth, Chairperson of the Last Mountain Lake Stewardship Group, sworn the e. ?1h day of December, 2017; The Affidavit of Aura Lee MacPherson, Chairperson of the Calling Lakes Ecomuseum, sworn the f. ?1h day of December, 2017; ?1h day of December, 2017; Such further and other materials as this Honourable Court may allow. - 19 DATED at Regina, Saskatchewan, this 12th day of December, 2017. (signature) This notice is issued at the above-noted judicial centre on the Jl day of December, 2017. Local Registrar NOTICE You are named as a respondent because you have made or are expected to make an adverse claim with respect to this originating application. If you do not come to Court either in person or by your lawyer, the Court may make an order declaring you and all persons claiming under you to be barred from taking any further proceedings against the applicant and against all persons claiming under the applicant. You will be bound by any order the Court makes. If you want to take part in the application, you or your lawyer must attend in Court on the date and at the time shown at the beginning of this form. The rules require that a party moving or opposing an originating application must serve any brief of written argument on each of the other parties and file it at least 3 days before the date scheduled for hearing the originating application. If you intend to rely on an affidavit or other evidence when the originating application is heard or considered, you must serve a copy of the affidavit and other evidence on the originating applicant at least 10 days before the originating application is to be heard or considered. - 20 CONTACT INFORMATION AND ADDRESS FOR SERVICE ~~ Jack D. Coop Counsel for the Applicant Fogler, Rubinoff LLP 77 King Street West Suite 3000, P.O. Box 95 TD Centre North Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1G8 Phone: (416) 864-9700 Fax: (416) 914-8852 Email: jcoop@foglers.com and Ryan M. Lake Aron Taylor Counsel for the Applicant Maurice Law Barristers & Solicitors 209-2nd Avenue North Saskatoon, SK S7K 3P2 Phone: (403) 949-5606 ext. 236 Fax: (403) 266-2701 Email: rlake@mauricelaw.com ataylor@mauricelaw.com TO: Saskatchewan Minister Of Environment 4th Floor, 3211 Albert Street Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 5W6 AND TO: Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice 900-1874 Scarth Street Regina, SK S4P 483 AND TO: Quill Lakes Watershed Association No. 14 PO Box477 Quill Lake, SK SOA 3EO AND TO: Minis.ter of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Prairie Regional Office - Saskatoon Department of Justice Canada 123-2nd Avenue S., 10th Floor Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 7E6