Law360 Canada (May 22, 2026, 10:24 AM EDT) --

Nick Leeson

Justin Burt

Julian SpearChief-Morris

Mariana Gallegos Dupuis

In June 2023, following nearly two decades of consultation, revisions and public processes, the Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) completed and submitted the Recommended Nunavut Land Use Plan (RNLUP). Under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) and the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act (NuPPAA), the plan requires review and approval by three signatories: Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the government of Nunavut and the government of Canada. Yet nearly three years later, the plan remains neither accepted nor rejected.

That delay is no longer neutral.

Every month of continued non-decision allows development and mineral interests to continue to accumulate, weakens the practical effect of the eventual plan, and increases the cost and difficulty of future implementation. What is at stake is not simply administrative delay. It is whether a treaty-and-statute-based planning regime, carefully negotiated and built to guide land use across Nunavut, will be allowed to operate before it is overtaken by the very development pressures it was meant to organize.

A plan built through years of work

The RNLUP did not appear overnight. Over roughly 17 years, the Nunavut Planning Commission carried out community engagement, technical studies, public hearings, written consultation and repeated rounds of revision. The resulting plan reflects priorities consistently identified by Nunavummiut, including food security, wildlife and habitat protection, the preservation of Inuit culture and traditional practices, sustainable economic development and increasing employment opportunities.

That long process matters. The issue is not that the plan may need more work. It is that the process has already reached the point where the signatories are legally required to decide, and they have not done so.

The treaty and the law require a decision

Land use planning in Nunavut is not a policy luxury. It is built into the legal architecture of the NLCA and NuPPAA. Article 11 of the NLCA establishes a structured planning regime intended to result in an operative land use plan. It provides that, once a draft or revised plan is received, the signatories “shall, as soon as practicable,” either accept the plan or return it with written reasons. NuPPAA carries that same structure into statute.

That language matters. It means the legal framework contemplates movement toward decision and implementation — not indefinite suspension at the point when a decision is due. The issue is not whether the RNLUP must be approved exactly as drafted. It is whether, after the commission has completed its work and submitted the plan for decision, the signatories can lawfully leave the process unresolved. On a fair reading of the treaty and statute, they cannot.

Delay changing the landscape in real time and real consequences for Inuit

The practical consequences of delay are already visible. Land use planning is supposed to operate proactively: it is meant to provide up-front clarity about where development may proceed, where it should be limited, and how community priorities are to be respected. Without an approved plan in place, that sequence is reversed. Interests are asserted first and dealt with later.

That matters because the RNLUP designates certain areas for limited, conditional and mixed use. Those designations were meant to help protect areas important to wildlife, harvesting, culture and community priorities. While the plan remains unresolved, those protections remain inoperative and development continues apace. Public reporting has already highlighted a recent mining rush, including claims staked in areas that would be designated for limited use if the RNLUP were approved. The overlap reportedly includes areas important to wildlife, harvesting and cultural use. As those interests continue to accumulate in the absence of an operative plan, the practical ability to protect such areas is weakened, and the likelihood of later conflict, compensation demands or other legal consequences increases.

The longer this continues, the harder the plan will be to implement in any meaningful way. Existing interests cannot simply be wished away. Later implementation may require accommodation, compensation, grandfathering or other costly workarounds. Delay, in other words, does not preserve flexibility. It narrows options and raises costs for the community.

This is especially significant as devolution approaches. If authority over lands and resources shifts before the inaugural land use plan is in place, Nunavut may inherit a more encumbered, more contested and more expensive implementation landscape than it otherwise would have. Delay today is therefore not just a missed procedural step. It is a way of making future governance harder, more contested and more costly.

Why the issue is especially timely now

This issue is also newly urgent in the current federal policy climate. Ottawa is now explicitly prioritizing major projects, critical minerals, Arctic infrastructure and northern sovereignty, including through the Building Canada Act and the Major Projects Office. In that environment, an approved land use plan would not hinder responsible northern development; it would help support it. It would provide the kind of up-front clarity, lawful structure and community-grounded certainty that major projects and infrastructure investment increasingly require. In other words, bringing the RNLUP into operation would not be a brake on development. It would be one of the clearest ways to make future development in Nunavut more credible, more efficient and more durable.

The timing of this issue also matters. With the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. presidential byelection scheduled for May 27, Inuit are entitled to hear clearly from candidates whether they support bringing the RNLUP to decision without further delay. The issue is also timely federally. Nunavut MP Lori Idlout previously called on Ottawa to approve the plan and raised concern that, in the absence of an approved land use framework, claims may continue to be staked before consultation obligations are triggered. She has since said that joining the governing Liberals gives her a stronger voice with ministers. These developments underscore that continued non-decision is now a live public-accountability issue in Nunavut.

Legal consequences are becoming harder to ignore

Where a legal regime requires a decision or action to be taken, an extended and unexplained failure to act can carry legal consequences, especially where the delay undermines the intent, effectiveness or proper functioning of the regulatory framework. That is the concern here.

The delay is no longer occurring in the abstract. It is now weakening the effectiveness of the overall planning framework, increasing implementation costs and allowing further conflict to accumulate. In those circumstances, prolonged non-performance of treaty and statutory obligations may give rise to legal remedies including declaratory relief, mandamus-style relief and, in an appropriate case, more serious remedial consequences where continued delay can be shown to have caused concrete harms — for example, impacts to harvesting, cultural or wildlife — or increased future implementation costs through later accommodation, tenure relinquishment compensation or other remedial measures (Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] 1 S.C.R. 623).

A declaration would not require the signatories to approve the RNLUP, but rather would clarify that the process cannot lawfully remain in a state of prolonged non-decision without justification. A grant of mandamus relief would compel performance of a legal duty where the conditions for that remedy are met, including where a public duty exists, the duty is owed to the applicant, and the duty has not been performed. The Supreme Court clarified in Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, [2022] S.C.J. No. 29, at para. 38-44 on Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307 that delay becomes actionable where it is inordinate, unjustified and results in significant prejudice, especially where the prejudice undermines the fairness or purpose of the proceeding. Similarly, in Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2014] Nu.J. No. 13, the Nunavut Court of Appeal emphasized that treaty obligations must have meaningful effect and may, in an appropriate case, support monetary relief. Courts have also confirmed that mandamus relief may be available even where statutory discretion is involved, so long as the remedy compels a decision rather than dictating its outcome, as illustrated in Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) (C.A.), [1994] 1 F.C. 742, where the court ordered the lieutenant-governor-in-council to make a decision without prescribing its substance.

The signatories need to decide

The greater risk now is not acting too soon. It is continuing to wait while more interests accumulate, more conflict builds and the practical value of the eventual plan is diminished. No land use plan is ever perfect at the moment of approval, and the legal framework already accounts for that concern through its many mechanisms for amendment, review and variation after approval.

The signatories do not need to agree that the RNLUP is flawless. They need to make a decision. If they do not, delay will continue to harden interests on the ground, increase future implementation costs and heighten legal and political risk — especially where harvesting, cultural, wildlife and other protected interests are affected. The stronger risk is not moving too soon. It is waiting too long.
 
Nick Leeson is senior counsel with Woodward LLP. His practice is based out of British Columbia, where he practises law for Woodward across Canada, representing Indigenous clients and interests from coast to coast to coast.

Justin Burt is a freelance lawyer associated with Woodward LLP. His practice is based out of Alberta, where he practises law for Indigenous clients across Canada.

Julian SpearChief-Morris holds a JD from Harvard Law School and a BA in urban and regional studies from the University of Lethbridge. He has represented First Nations, businesses and individuals on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border in a range of commercial, corporate and governance matters. Reach him at jspearchief-morris@woodwardandcompany.com.

Mariana Gallegos Dupuis is an independent legal counsel. Reach her at mariana.gallegosdupuis@mail.mcgill.ca.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.