The Reality of Project Approvals in Canada: Law, Delays, and Outcomes

Sara Santos-Vigneault
Apr 27
4 min read

Written by: Sara Santos-Vigneault

Date: April 27, 2026

Stack of binders tied with red ribbon labeled with assessments on a desk. Stamps read "Approved," "Pending," and "Rejected."

Large infrastructure projects in Canada, including pipelines and energy developments, are often described as being delayed by “red tape.” The phrase is widely used, but it does not refer to a single legal rule or authority.

In practice, project timelines are shaped by how the legal system is structured. A project must pass through multiple layers of law, including federal legislation, provincial regulation, constitutional obligations, and judicial oversight. Each layer imposes requirements that must be satisfied before a project can proceed.

When these layers operate together, the result is a process that can take many years and may lead to different outcomes, including approval, delay, or cancellation.

Federal Legal Framework

At the federal level, major projects are governed by the Impact Assessment Act. This legislation requires certain projects to undergo a formal review before approval can be granted. [1]

The process is administered by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and may involve other regulators, including the Canada Energy Regulator. [2][3]

The assessment must consider environmental, economic, and social effects, including impacts on Indigenous groups. These factors are required by law and form part of the approval decision.

Timelines in Law and in Practice

The legislation sets out timelines for review. Standard assessments are generally framed at approximately 300 days, while more complex reviews may extend to approximately 600 days. [4]

These timelines are often cited in public discussion. However, they apply only to part of the overall process. They do not include earlier stages of project development, pauses during review, or post-approval legal challenges.

What the Process Actually Includes

A major project typically moves through several stages, many of which fall outside the formal timeline.

Pre-Application Work

Before entering the formal process, proponents conduct engineering design, environmental studies, and early engagement with affected communities. This stage is required but not captured in statutory timelines and may take several years.

Impact Assessment

Once submitted, the project undergoes federal review. This includes detailed studies, regulatory analysis, and public participation. Regulators may pause the process to request additional information or revisions. These pauses are permitted within the framework of the legislation. [4]

Indigenous Consultation

Consultation with Indigenous groups is required under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. [5]

This process is ongoing and may involve multiple rounds of engagement, further study, and consideration of project changes. Where consultation is not sufficient, approvals may be set aside.

Parallel Approvals

Projects must also comply with provincial and municipal laws, including environmental approvals, permits, and local bylaws. These processes operate independently and may affect overall timelines.

Judicial Review

Regulatory decisions may be challenged in court. Where legal requirements are not met, approvals may be overturned and the process may return to earlier stages.

Four workers in safety gear review plans on a muddy construction site. An excavator is nearby, and a sign reads "Danger: Construction on Hold."

Real-World Examples: Process, Outcomes, and Status

Trans Mountain Expansion (Alberta to British Columbia)

The Trans Mountain expansion runs from Edmonton, Alberta to Burnaby, British Columbia.

2013: Application filed

2016: Approved

2018: Approval set aside by the Federal Court of Appeal in Tsleil-Waututh Nation v Canada (Attorney General) [6]

2019: Re-approved after further consultation

The Court found that consultation and environmental review were not sufficient, requiring parts of the process to be repeated.

Status: Completed and entered service in 2024.

Outcome: Built, but only after more than a decade and repeated regulatory steps.

Energy East Pipeline (Western to Eastern Canada)

Energy East was a proposed pipeline connecting Alberta and Saskatchewan to Eastern Canada.

2013: Proposed

2014 to 2017: Under regulatory review

Scope expanded to include broader climate impacts

2017: Application withdrawn [7]

Status: Not built.

Outcome: Cancelled during the regulatory process following expanded requirements.

Northern Gateway Pipeline (Alberta to British Columbia Coast)

Northern Gateway was proposed to transport oil from Alberta to the northern coast of British Columbia.

2006: Proposed

2014: Approved with conditions

2016: Approval set aside by the Federal Court of Appeal due to inadequate consultation [8]

2016: Project cancelled

Status: Not built.

Outcome: Approved, overturned by the Court, and ultimately cancelled.

Keystone XL Pipeline (Canada to United States)

Keystone XL was an international pipeline connecting Alberta to the United States.

2008: Proposed

Subject to multiple regulatory reviews and legal challenges

2021: Cancelled

Status: Not built.

Outcome: Extended regulatory and political process ending in cancellation.

Coastal GasLink Pipeline (British Columbia)

Coastal GasLink connects northeastern British Columbia to the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat.

Mid-2010s: Approvals obtained

Late 2010s to 2020s: Construction with legal disputes and enforcement actions

Status: Completed in 2023 and operational. [9]

Outcome: Built, but with continued legal and operational challenges after approval.

Economic Impact of Extended Timelines

Extended timelines have economic implications that operate alongside the legal framework. Large infrastructure projects are typically associated with investment, employment, and broader economic activity across multiple sectors.

Where timelines extend, project costs may increase due to prolonged development, regulatory compliance, and financing requirements. In some cases, projects may no longer proceed if costs or uncertainty become too significant.

These conditions can affect not only large project proponents but also smaller businesses. Participation in major projects often depends on the ability to absorb delays, manage regulatory requirements, and commit resources over extended periods. Where timelines become uncertain or prolonged, smaller businesses may face greater difficulty participating in or benefiting from these projects.

The economic effects of delay or cancellation are part of the broader context in which the legal system operates.

Conclusion

Project development in Canada is shaped by a legal framework that allows for review, reconsideration, and, in some cases, reversal of approval decisions. Federal assessment, constitutional consultation, and judicial oversight all contribute to this structure.

The examples discussed demonstrate that projects do not follow a single path. Some are completed after extended timelines, while others are delayed, revised, or discontinued.

These outcomes have economic implications. Large projects often involve significant investment and business activity, which may be affected by extended timelines or uncertainty. Where regulatory processes become prolonged or complex, the cost of participation may increase, particularly for smaller businesses with fewer resources.

As a result, the legal framework influences not only how projects are approved, but also the conditions under which economic activity connected to those projects occurs.