The plaintiffs sought up to $50 million for alleged negligent misrepresentations made by Ministry officials during the regulatory review of a proposed wind energy project requiring a Renewable Energy Approval.
The court held that the Ministry representatives owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs given their sustained, proponent-facing interactions and knowledge of the economic consequences tied to the feed-in-tariff deadline.
However, the court found that none of the four alleged misrepresentations was actionable: some statements were attributable only to government press releases or regulatory materials, while others were factually and legally correct, including statements about the six-month service standard, merits-based review, and the absence of any Indigenous veto.
The court also rejected preliminary defences based on pleading sufficiency, issue estoppel, abuse of process, and a prior release.
The action was dismissed.
