Alberta Energy Regulator Says Athabasca River Basin is Not a “Person”
Want to keep up with environmental news, law, and policy? Sign up for the Green Economy Law Monthly Newsletter here.
On October 22, the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) rejected an Ecojustice-led effort to have the Athabasca River Basin recognized as an “eligible person” under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”).
The effort was launched as a means of disputing Canadian Natural Upgrading Limited’s (“CNUL”) application to renew a permit for its Jackpine Oil Sands Processing Plant and Mine, located near Fort McMurray.
Legal Context
Section 28 of the REDA permits an “eligible person” to request a regulatory appeal. REDA defines an “eligible person” as someone “directly and adversely affected” by a decision under an energy resource enactment, such as the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (“EPEA”).
Under section 31 of the REDA, public notice is required for applications of this kind. Section 32 then allows any person who believes they may be “directly and adversely affected” to submit a statement of concern.
After notice of CNUL’s application was issued, the Alberta Wilderness Association and Keepers of the Water filed a statement of concern on behalf of the Athabasca River Basin, asking the AER to recognize the river basin as a directly and adversely affected person.
Their statement raised several environmental impacts, including:
Large-scale withdrawals from the Athabasca and diversions from its watershed;
Air emissions depositing contaminants into the Basin;
Discharges from sedimentation ponds into the Muskeg River;
Destruction of wetlands and old growth forest, undermining freshwater storage;
Tailings leakage into hydrologically connected groundwater; and
Greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate-driven changes in river flow.
The advocacy groups also argued that CNUL’s renewal application lacked the information needed to assess the long-term impacts on the river basin.
Procedural History
On March 10, 2025, the AER approved CNUL’s renewal without a hearing. The decision declined to determine whether the Athabasca was directly and adversely affected, stating that a ruling on standing - the legal right to bring a claim because one is directly affected - was unnecessary because the AER had already considered the statement of concern and concluded a hearing was unwarranted.
Ecojustice filed a regulatory appeal, asserting the AER failed to properly engage with the concerns raised. It again argued that the Athabasca qualifies as a directly and adversely affected person, and that the AER has the authority to make such a determination under s. 14 of the REDA.
CNUL argued that Canada has no binding precedent recognizing a river or other natural feature as a legal person for the purposes of administrative decision-making. Ecojustice responded by pointing to the Magpie River in Quebec, which was granted legal personhood and the ability to bring legal actions. However, that status resulted from a coordinated initiative by two local Indigenous and municipal governments, not from a tribunal or court.
The AER held that, unlike those governments, it lacks jurisdiction to grant legal personhood to a Crown resource. It claimed that it is bound by the definitions in REDA, which recognize only natural persons and legal persons. The AER also suggested that allowing Ecojustice to speak on behalf of the river basin amounted to “usurping the Crown’s ownership and fiduciary role” over public resources.
The AER further found that, even aside from the personhood issue, the environmental impacts described in the statement of concern were too general and vague to meet the “directly and adversely affected” threshold.
Statutory Authority and Interpretation
Section 14 of the REDA grants the AER broad powers to do “all things” necessary or incidental to carrying out its duties or functions. The AER’s mandate under s. 2(1) of the REDA is:
(a) to provide for the efficient, safe, orderly and environmentally responsible development of energy resources and mineral resources in Alberta through the Regulator’s regulatory activities, and
(b) in respect of energy resource activities, to regulate
(i) the disposition and management of public lands,
(ii) the protection of the environment, and
(iii) the conservation and management of water, including the wise allocation and use of water, in accordance with energy resource enactments and, pursuant to this Act and the regulations, in accordance with specified enactments.
Ecojustice argued that the AER’s powers are sufficiently flexible to grant the Athabasca procedural standing, particularly because the statement of concern sought only procedural rights. The groups did not ask the AER to recognize substantive rights of the river basin, like the right to exist or be restored. They only asked that the river basin be permitted to raise concerns regarding the environmental impact of CNUL’s application.
In light of the AER’s broad powers and Ecojustice’s narrow, procedurally-focussed submissions, the decision reads less like a strict statutory interpretation and more like a cultural refusal: an unwillingness to move away from Alberta’s historically narrow approach to public participation in resource and environmental decision-making.
It is disconcerting that the AER interprets its jurisdiction and mandate so narrowly, given that it is the primary decision-maker for some of the most environmentally consequential projects in the province, and arguably the country, including major mines and oil sands developments.
A functioning regulatory system requires governments to be held accountable to the law. This is true in many contexts, but is certainly an enormous issue in the environmental realm, where governments and administrative bodies either lack the resources to enforce their own environmental protection laws, or worse, suffer from regulatory capture and prioritize corporate interests over the public interest.
This decision thus emphasizes the question raised in the statement of concern: How can the natural world be meaningfully protected, as the legislature intends, when neither ecosystems nor those who speak for them have standing to ensure that the government follows its own laws?
International Comparisons
Globally, several jurisdictions have recognized legal rights or personhood for rivers and waterbodies through legislation or court rulings, including the Whanganui River (New Zealand), the Mar Menor lagoon (Spain), the Atrato River (Colombia), the Vilcabamba River (Ecuador), and the Klamath River (through Yurok tribal law in California). The Supreme Court of Bangladesh granted all rivers in the country the status of legal entities.
These developments reflect an emerging global shift toward legal frameworks that treat ecosystems as rights-bearing entities deserving of a voice. The AER’s stance, by contrast, remains anchored in narrow, traditional notions of personhood, to the detriment of the natural world and to meaningful public participation in environmental decision-making.
Please contact our firm at 647-725-4308 or info@greeneconomylaw.com, or book a consultation, for legal assistance in connection with environmental law or policy matters.