Torr Metals Inc. has been denied permission to appeal a ruling that limited the evidence it could obtain in its challenge to a drilling permit refusal. The exploration company pointed to a draft permit and an undocumented meeting with the Tahltan Nation as reasons to examine how the inspector reached her decision. A B.C. appeal judge found that the lower court had considered both points and had grounds to decline further disclosure.
In Torr Metals Inc. v Senior Permitting Inspector of Mines, 2026 BCCA 438, Justice Fenlon dismissed the company’s application for leave to appeal. Her ruling concerned the material available for judicial review. The lawfulness of the permit refusal itself remained for the judge hearing the petition.
What Torr sought from the inspector
In 2022, Torr applied for a permit for a five-year drilling program south of Dease Lake on the traditional territory of the Tahltan Nation. Senior permitting inspector Nadia Bruemmer consulted with the Tahltan Central Government before refusing the permit in August 2023. Torr sought judicial review, alleging among other things that Bruemmer had improperly left the decision to the Tahltan Central Government or restricted her own discretion.
Torr questioned whether the inspector had filed the complete record. In response to its requests, her counsel released an email that had been omitted inadvertently. Counsel also provided calendar entries, staff notes and 36 email chains while disputing that those materials belonged in the record.
Torr asked the B.C. Supreme Court to order further production, allow it to cross-examine Bruemmer and require a list describing documents over which she claimed solicitor-client privilege. The chambers judge refused all three requests. Fenlon held that each ruling required leave to appeal.
What the timeline could establish
Torr argued that a meeting shortly before the refusal had gone undocumented and that the inspector had rejected the permit after the Tahltan Nation said it would not consent, even though a draft permit had been prepared. The company argued that this sequence supported its concern that the Nation had effectively been given a veto.
Fenlon observed that the inspector had a duty to consult the Nation and consider its concerns. The respondents had produced an extensive record of those consultations. The chambers judge had considered both the undocumented meetings and the change in direction. Fenlon found no error in his conclusion that the record did not supply an evidentiary basis for the additional inquiries Torr sought.
A judicial review normally proceeds on the material that was before the decision maker, Fenlon explained. A court can look beyond that record when it needs additional evidence to assess whether the process was fair. The applicant must point to evidence supporting the concern that justifies further disclosure.
Fenlon concluded that the proposed appeal had weak prospects and raised no unsettled issue about how judicial reviews are conducted. The leave application had already led to an adjournment of the petition hearing, and an appeal would cause further delay.
Source: Read the decision on CanLII · Court of Appeal reasons.
