{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028836251287332648, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008238928939237899, 'mean_word_length': 5.703448275862069, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Environmental Assessment as Planning and Disclosure Tool: Greenpeace Canada v. Canada (Attorney General)

In Greenpeace Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) (2014), the applicants successfully challenged the adequacy of the environmental assessment report prepared in relation to a proposed nuclear power plant. In assessing that report, the Federal Court described environmental assessment as an “evidence-based and democratically accountable” decision-making process. In this comment I suggest that this characterization represents the most significant – if perhaps also long overdue – development in Canadian environmental assessment law since the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport) (1992). I also discuss some of the implications of this characterization, including the extent to which environmental effects must be considered and the proper approach to judicial review in this context.