Seabridge files final submissions ahead of court hearing on KSM project near Stewart
A challenge connected to one of the world’s largest untapped gold deposits is headed to B.C. Supreme Court later this month.
Seabridge Gold Inc. has submitted its final written arguments in a legal challenge against the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office’s (EAO) decision to grant the company’s KSM project a Substantially Started Designation (SSD).
Located near Stewart in B.C.’s Northwest, Seabridge touts the KSM project as Canada’s largest, a 33-year operation tapping reserves estimated at 47.3 million ounces of gold and 7.3 billion pounds of copper. The hearing is scheduled to take place Sept. 22 to Oct. 1 in B.C. Supreme Court.
“We believe the arguments against the allegations in the Petitions are compelling. I continue to have confidence in the strength of our position against the Petitions and hope for a speedy decision by the Court. While this legal process continues, the SSD remains in effect,” said Rudi Fronk, CEO of Seabridge Gold.
B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Act mandates that environmental certificates expire if a project fails to make a substantial start within a set timeframe, requiring a fresh environmental review under current laws, science, and conditions.
The SSD, granted by the EAO on July 29, 2024, means the project’s Environmental Assessment Certificate is no longer subject to expiry.
The petitions, filed in late 2024 by the Tsetsaut Skii km Lax Ha Nation, the SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, and the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission, argue that the province failed to adequately consult affected communities before granting the SSD.
Seabridge’s latest filings build on submissions made earlier in May, arguing the EAO followed a procedurally fair process, met its consultation obligations, and made a reasonable decision in granting the SSD. The company is also challenging the legal standing of SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, one of the petitioners in the case, and is asking the court to dismiss its petition.
The B.C. government filed its written arguments alongside Seabridge.
Meanwhile, Seabridge noted in its press release that the Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission (SEITC )—one of the original petitioners—has recently withdrawn from the case.
However, a SEITC spokesperson clarified the withdrawal was a procedural decision to focus on a case of greater strategic importance to Tribal rights. “It is not based on the merits of the judicial review, and we remain confident in its chances of success,” she added.
The legal proceedings are set to continue later this month, when the court will hear arguments from all remaining parties.