Seabridge Gold faces a new petition seeking a judicial review of its KSM project's 'substantially started' determination, following the one filed by the indigenous group Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha (TSKLH) on 22 November.
The petition was filed with the British Columbia Supreme Court by SkeenaWild Conservation Trust and the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission (SEITC). It echoes the arguments of the last petition and contends that the decision was unreasonable.
The ‘substantially started’ decision was made by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy of British Columbia on 25 July 2024.
The determination in question confirmed that the KSM Project, owned by Seabridge subsidiary KSM Mining (KSMCo), had commenced sufficiently to extend its environmental assessment certificate beyond the original expiry date of 29 July 2026.
SEITC, despite its name, does not possess regulatory authority over the KSM Project or the 'substantially started' determination.
The new petitioners, acting as public interest advocates, are requesting that the decision be quashed and revisited by the minister.
Seabridge chairman and CEO Rudi Fronk said: "It is clear that the new petitioners do not represent the interests of north-west British Columbia or Canada."
The court will assess the reasonableness of the minister's decision, a high threshold given the discretionary nature of the 'substantially started' determination under the legislation.
Both petitions will be heard concurrently due to their similar issues, with the new petition also naming KSMCo as a respondent.
The challenge arises despite significant work undertaken at the KSM project site and widespread support from local indigenous communities and municipalities.
The outcome, which may take over a year to resolve, could lead to a reaffirmation of the initial determination or a new application process for the KSM project.
Fronk added: "We have had a week to consider the previous petition. We are very confident there is ample evidence that the determination was reasonable and appropriate. Since our subsidiary is included as a respondent to the new petition, we are a party to the proceedings and will aggressively defend against both petitions."
