Energy Adjudication

Within our adjudicative processes, we seek to ensure we make decisions and recommendations according to the law, while adhering to the principles of procedural fairness in our processes. This is extremely important to us – making sure everyone who has a right to be heard is heard, and that evidence is tested and examined as part of our record and processes. There have been a number of court challenges to our decisions recently, and in 2017-18, none have been overturned on appeal on matters related to procedural fairness.

In July 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) Hamlet of Clyde River decision found that the Crown did not meet its duty to consult in relying on the NEB process in that instance. Procedural fairness is an administrative law requirement which is significantly different than the Crown’s duty to consult. Nonetheless, the SCC highlights a clear need for enhanced consultation and engagement with Indigenous communities in (as well as outside of) our adjudication processes, and we are taking active steps to improve.

*SERVICE STANDARDS PUBLICLY STATE THE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE CITIZENS CAN REASONABLY EXPECT TO ENCOUNTER FROM THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

While our overall time limits and service standard targets are being met, some processes are taking longer. We missed service standard target dates on a few processes which put at risk, but did not compromise, our ability to meet our overall performance targets. Nonetheless, we know that ensuring we have timely and efficient adjudication processes is very important, and we are taking steps to examine ways to improve our efficiency, including ways to enhance early engagement and issues resolution.

While the NEB’s targets for transparency are being achieved, we are not yet satisfied that we are doing enough to reach our desired outcome. Results from the NEB’s post-hearing participant surveys indicate that the vast majority of respondents felt that the NEB provided opportunities to participate, that hearing documents were clear and transparent, and that they could see their views reflected in the decisions, which was key to feeling the hearing decision was transparent. Participants, however, did not feel the NEB made it easy to access hearing documents through our website.

The percentage of applicants who are satisfied with the service provided by the NEB in its Participant Funding Program remains high. Last year, we surveyed participants and feedback was generally positive and constructive in helping guide annual program improvements. We also made changes last year to our management practices in this area, resulting in an increase in the timeliness of the release of funding decisions. We know that more can be done to continually improve the program, however, and are committed to doing it.