What legal challenges have been filed against the One Canadian Economy Act and its fast-tracking provisions?
Executive summary
The One Canadian Economy Act (Bill C-5) has already prompted litigation: at least nine Ontario First Nations have launched a court challenge contesting the law and Ontario’s companion Bill 5, while legal groups and commentators warn of additional constitutional and statutory challenges from Indigenous Nations, provinces and environmental intervenors; commentators also note the federal government defends the Act as necessary to fast-track projects in the national interest [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting to date documents formal litigation by those First Nations and a chorus of anticipated challenges grounded largely in alleged breaches of the Crown’s duty to consult, impact-assessment procedures and potential conflicts with provincial jurisdiction — but publicly available reporting does not catalogue other specific filed cases beyond the Ontario First Nations action [1] [2] [5] [6].
1. The complaint on the table: who sued and what they say
Nine Ontario First Nations have filed a court challenge that explicitly targets the One Canadian Economy Act and Ontario’s Bill 5, arguing the federal framework and the provincial law together risk undermining Indigenous rights and consultation obligations; law-firm and legal-press coverage identifies this group as the first concrete litigation against the new regime [1]. The core legal theory flagged by the Canadian Bar Association and echoed by Indigenous critics is that provisions in the Building Canada Act and related fast-track mechanisms could bypass or dilute procedural safeguards under the Impact Assessment Act and other statutes, and thereby frustrate the Crown’s constitutionally protected duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 [2] [5].
2. Grounds for challenge: consultation, impact assessment and Charter/constitutional claims
Legal commentators and the CBA have focused on three likely grounds for successful challenges: failure to satisfy the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate; statutory overrides that remove key procedural protections in impact assessments and energy regulation; and federal-provincial jurisdictional conflicts created by sweeping mutual-recognition and override clauses that make the Act prevail over other federal statutes “to the extent of any conflict” [2] [5] [7]. Those critiques emphasise that Bill C-5’s Building Canada Act designates “national interest” projects and authorises Cabinet to streamline approvals and bypass provisions of other laws, creating concrete legal hooks for claims that the legislative shortcuts violate statutory and constitutional safeguards [3] [7] [8].
3. Who else might sue and why — provinces, unions, environmental groups
Beyond the First Nations litigation already public, analysts expect provinces, territories, environmental NGOs and labour organisations to bring or support challenges if they perceive economic-harm, regulatory dilution or threats to provincial jurisdictions and workers’ rights; trade‑policy critics warn of a “race to the bottom” from mutual recognition, while unions charge the Act threatens workers and public services [9] [10] [11]. Legal briefings and industry notes foresee challenges that will test whether Ottawa’s stated aim of national economic integration can legally override provincial regulatory autonomy and whether expedited processes can lawfully curtail planning-phase protections under existing impact-assessment regimes [2] [5] [9].
4. Government defence and political framing
The federal government frames the One Canadian Economy Act as a tool to remove internal trade barriers, accelerate nation‑building projects, and protect national economic and security interests while promising Indigenous partnership; ministers point to the Major Projects Office and mutual-recognition mechanisms as implementation tools intended to balance speed with safeguards [3] [12] [13]. Yet critics charge that invoking “national interest” and a perceived urgency to counter external economic pressures masks a legislative willingness to use Henry VIII-style powers to override other statutes — an implicit political agenda flagged in policy critiques and media analysis [9] [3].
5. What the record shows — limits and next legal steps
The documented litigation to date is limited: reporting and legal press identify the Nine Ontario First Nations lawsuit as the principal filed challenge and catalogue widespread anticipatory warnings by the CBA, law firms and civil society about further legal actions, but public sources do not provide a comprehensive docket of additional active cases as of the latest coverage [1] [2] [5] [4]. The next phase will likely see procedural battles over standing, timing and interlocutory relief (injunctions to halt project designations or regulatory changes) and appellate review if courts find the Act tramples constitutional or statutory duties — outcomes that will determine whether the government’s fast‑track design survives judicial scrutiny or must be retooled to preserve consultation and environmental safeguards [2] [5].