the case law stipulates that you have what is a called a "duty to consult", which is semantically identical to a request to seek consent. that said, the case law does not necessitate that the consultation is adhered to in any way.

it's basically down to the judge. there have been cases that have been overturned on appeal under the claim that the consultation was not legitimate, and i might suspect that this would be the case if the lng issue were brought to the supreme court, as the consultation was not through the appropriate body.

but, it may just buy time, as a meaningful consultation wouldn't be legally binding.

the globe article was frustrating to me because it made it seem as though the issue was being pushed down by a meddlesome international body, when the opposite is actually true: the canadian courts are actually responsible for a substantial amount of the direction and tone of the conceptualized internationalization of aboriginal law.