Thank you for your question.
The first case was the Kearl case, where the joint review panel had indicated that for Imperial Oil's Kearl project, the emission of greenhouse gases—the equivalent to 800,000 vehicles—was not a significant impact. Our client in that case, the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition and others, just felt that was an unreasonable decision. So that was challenged in Federal Court. The Federal Court agreed that the panel had an obligation to give some reasons for its decision, so in that case the fisheries permit was temporarily revoked and then re-issued.
The other one is related to January of this year, and most people would be familiar with an incident at the Syncrude tailings pond in which 1,600 ducks died after landing on the pond. We attempted to discuss that with federal and provincial investigators and the crown in the fall of 2008, and were stonewalled on that. So through a resident of Alberta and the Sierra Club, we brought a private prosecution for that action.
The reason for our actions? Either we thought a decision was unreasonable, or we thought the government was not taking action it should have been taking.