Babjak1 - agreed, Noront takes good notes and makes clear efforts to document meetings.

However, with so many of the nuances of consultation practice and law evolving every few months it will be hard to shift from the appearance of consultation to the substance. Having been involved with some other projects, its easy to make a big deal about hosting a meeting in a community, but what will matter when things with NOT could be under legal review (on EA or future permitting) is what exactly was shared, discussed, and what was done to consider feedback and potentially adjust plans.

I'm sure Glenn and others who are in the FNs often know what they are doing, but as things move forward in the coming months... everyone had better be clear and careful.

Here's some of the detail from the reasons for decision in the Landore case: http://canlii.ca/t/ht156

Some of the paragraphs here are very important - 

[115]      The Ministry argues that there was no need for a further community meeting as its duty to consult was more than adequately fulfilled without it. Eabametoong had had notice of the proposed permit, had met with Landore in December of 2013, had expressed its concerns in writing in January of 2014, had had one face-to-face community meeting with the Landore CEO in the summer of 2014 and was given an opportunity to comment on the proposed conditions to the permit, conditions that were specifically designed to address Eabametoong’s concerns.

[116]      This is where it becomes necessary to look beyond form to substance. After Eabametoong expressed its concerns in January of 2014, it received no communication from the Ministry regarding those concerns until March 4, 2016 when the Ministry wrote to Eabametoong enclosing the list of proposed conditions that were apparently designed to meet those concerns. When Eabametoong pointed out why those proposed conditions did not meet their concerns and why the community meeting they had been told would take place was essential, the Ministry did not reply. It simply issued the Permit and made no changes to the conditions.

Paras 119-121 are damning... and show real problems by the company, and by MNDM's staff & Director.

[119]      In terms of Landore and the dialogue that it had with Eabametoong about their concerns, the only time that Landore and Eabametoong met to discuss those concerns was in July of 2014. Landore kept no detailed record of what took place at that meeting, but what is clear, is that at the end of the meeting, all parties agreed that there should be another face-to-face community meeting so that the discussion could continue.

[120]      Can it reasonably be said that this chain of events meets the bar of “talking together for mutual understanding”? In my view, it cannot. In coming to this conclusion I accept that the standard is not perfection. However, there was no real and genuine attempt by the Ministry or Landore to listen to Eabametoong’s concerns, provide feedback about those concerns and to discuss ways to meet those concerns (if possible). Instead, the concerns were noted, the expected opportunity for discussion was foreclosed without explanation and the Ministry proceeded in a unilateral way (without seeking or giving real feedback) to make its decision. Taken in context, its solicitations for comments from Eabametoong in February and March of 2016, do not reflect a genuine desire to engage in real, straightforward and honest consultation. Rather, they appear to be notifications that a decision had basically been made and if Eabametoong has anything to say they should do so within a very short time frame.

[121]      Fundamentally, the Ministry’s conduct cannot reasonably be considered to be the type of conduct that would promote reconciliation between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. That requires managing the consultation process in a way that fosters trust as opposed to misunderstanding and betrayal. While I do not regard the Ministry’s actions as deliberately attempting to do anything untrustworthy, viewed in the context of what happened, they unfortunately do not meet the standard required to maintain the honour of the Crown.

As Garry Clark said, the OPA and other juniors need to think through some options and establish a clearer system with Gov and FNs.

Not sure what Clark is suggesting by 'revamping' the system... but clarity is needed.