6 min. read
Summary
- Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment has approved two permits for Kinross Gold’s Great Bear mining project, which Grassy Narrows First Nation is concerned will cause environmental harm and worsen the mercury crisis the nation already endures.
- The ministry previously approved a similar permit, but the company withdrew it after Grassy Narrows brought its concerns to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
- The nation is now looking to appeal the new permits, arguing they present the same problems as the first one.
Ontario’s Environment Ministry has, for a second time, approved permits for a gold mining exploration project that a nearby First Nation says could worsen the region’s decades-old mercury crisis.
And that nation is, also for a second time, looking to appeal the permits.
The nation, Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows First Nation), successfully took the first step towards appealing a similar permit for Kinross Gold’s Great Bear mining project in 2025, with the Ontario Land Tribunal agreeing with the First Nation’s evidence for environmental concerns. Kinross withdrew that permit before the appeal could be heard.
Kinross applied again for similar permits in 2025, one for taking water and the other for discharging it, which the Ministry of the Environment issued on April 17. The nation is arguing the ministry was unreasonable to issue the permits due to the potential impacts of discharging sulphates from the wastewater into the environment, which leads to methylmercury production, a potent neurotoxin.
Richard Lindgren from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and one of the lawyers representing Grassy Narrows, told The Narwhal in an interview the nation submitted its application for leave on May 7.
It was submitted to the Ontario Land Tribunal under the Environmental Bill of Rights appeals framework. In it, Grassy Narrows and a team of experts argue the approvals would worsen the mercury crisis the community suffers from as a result of a pulp and paper mill discharging approximately 10 tonnes of mercury into the Wabigoon-English River system in the 1960s and ’70s.
Grassy Narrows holds an annual “River Run” for mercury justice each fall, and has been demonstrating at events with both provincial and federal politicians, seeking resolution and recognition for the mercury contamination that has resulted in things like tremors, cognitive effects and neuromuscular disorders.
In a separate case, Grassy Narrows took the province to court this month over similar sulphate discharge concerns from the Madsen gold mine, owned by West Red Lake Gold Mines Ltd., also upstream of the nation. A decision has not yet been released.
Meanwhile, in February, the Ontario government under Premier Doug Ford designated the Kinross Gold project under its One Project, One Process framework for fast-tracking development.
The Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Mines did not respond to a request for comment from The Narwhal. Samantha Sheffield, director of corporate communications for Kinross Gold, said in an email to The Narwhal the permit approval process took “nearly three years to complete,” and “resulted in strict conditions for environmental protection.”
She said the company provided Grassy Narrows with more than $750,000 in funding to assist in reviewing the permits, and conducted extensive consultation with the First Nation.
The Narwhal reached out to representatives from Grassy Narrows First Nation but did not receive a response by publication time.
Grassy Narrows is concerned mine approvals will increase mercury levels in fish
In April, Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks issued two approvals to Kinross Gold, the first being a five-year water-taking permit which allows Kinross to draw 2.9 million litres — more than an Olympic swimming pool’s volume — of surface and groundwater combined per day.
The second is known as an environmental compliance approval, and is for the treatment and discharge of that water back into the environment.
Lindgren said the nation and its experts reviewed the new permits and “still found them wanting,” adding they “still raised concerns about excessive discharge of sulphate that will facilitate or stimulate methylmercury production, which will lead to bioaccumulation in fish and consumers of fish, including the people of Grassy Narrows.”
Sulphates released in mining wastewater are gobbled up by bacteria in river bottoms and other areas, which then react, turning mercury already present in the environment into methylmercury. This methylmercury accumulates in fish and other aquatic species within the river system, and can extend up in the food chain to top predators, such as humans, through a process known as biomagnification.
Fish are an important food source for the Grassy Narrows community. “It’s not as if members of Grassy Narrows can just go to the local grocery store and substitute other food for fisheries,” Lindgren said.
“They have a treaty that guarantees them the right to continue to hunt and trap and fish, etc. So that’s a concern — that allowing the discharge of these deleterious materials into the watercourses will adversely affect their constitutionally protected rights.”
Mining approvals based on existing levels of mercury, which experts say are too high
An update to the environmental compliance approval, posted on Ontario’s environmental registry, indicated that, in response to concerns about mercury and impacts on fish, the Ministry of the Environment “adopted a conservative approach to address sulphate discharge.” That approach is requiring that “any discharge must meet the background concentration of the receiving environment” — in other words, the same level that’s already in the watercourse.
The nation and its team of experts say the history of mercury contamination in the area sets that benchmark level higher than it would otherwise be.
“So there’s a lot of concern that, you know, the so-called background limits are artificially high and will allow for the additional input of sulphate and the additional creation of methymercury,” Lindgren added.
Sheffield, with Kinross, said the permit imposes limits designed to “maintain naturally occurring background levels in the environment, in accordance with provincial policy.” She said the company accepted the limits in response to the concerns raised by Grassy Narrows First Nation, “to demonstrate a precautionary approach, despite the absence of scientific evidence supporting the asserted risks.”
The scientific concerns Grassy Narrows brought forward previously — and is again raising alongside newer and more extensive evidence — were accepted by the Ontario Land Tribunal when it granted the nation its first leave to appeal.
As the project proceeds, Sheffield said, “Kinross will continue to engage with all interested Indigenous communities, including Wabauskang, Lac Seul and Grassy Narrows, in the same spirit of open dialogue and respect. In everything we do, we prioritize the health and well-being of the people, land and environment.”
To proceed to the appeal stage, Grassy Narrows must pass a two-part test under the Environmental Bill of Rights: showing that, according to law, it was unreasonable for the ministry to issue the permits and that issuing them could result in significant harm to the environment.
“It’s the same test and the same argument this time around,” Lindgren explained, and they’ll be relying on the same experts — including Brian Branfireun, a Western University professor and leading expert in mercury and methylmercury for more than 20 years — to argue their case.
The tribunal still has to grant that leave to appeal, which would give the nation the chance to broaden their argument around the potential impacts of the permits granted to Kinross.
Lindgren said that if the two-part test is passed, the nation will file an appeal to have both permit approvals revoked.