I. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

1. I was asked to undertake an independent analysis of the environmental assessment (“EA”) process that was followed with respect to an application by Bilcon of Delaware, Inc. (“Bilcon”) for project approval of a quarry and basalt loading facility to be established at Whites Point, located in Digby County, Nova Scotia. I was asked to consider the decision-making followed prior to, during and after the Joint Review Panel (“JRP”) process established by the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia.

2. The specific question posed was whether the EA process that was followed, either considered in whole or in part, would be substantively unreasonable and/or procedurally unfair, as viewed through the lens of Canadian public law principles. In doing so, I compared the treatment afforded projects that might objectively be considered substantially similar to the Bilcon project, recognizing, of course, that no two projects are ever identical. It is a hallmark of the “rule of law” principle, which has been held to undergird Canadian constitutional law1, that as much as possible “like cases should be treated alike”. Prevailing notions of justice have long featured adherence to this fundamental principle.2

3. When broadly considered, the issue is whether those projects received better treatment in the application of the two Governments’ EA process when compared to the White Points Quarry (“WPQ”) project, and whether jurisdictional deficiencies arose during the process, including any lack of natural justice and procedural fairness, which would offend principles of Canadian public law.