—and my colleagues in the NEB might be able to add to it.
The first thing about the court decision that I think is really important to the member's question, Mr. Chair, is that within it there were multiple issues being adjudicated at the same time. I think there were 20-some different issues being adjudicated. In some cases, the court found on behalf of the applicants. In other cases, it upheld actions and particular issues. It's important to see that distinction in it.
Where it kind of commented on the duty to consult and consultation, it was pretty clear that the Crown had not in the third phase of the process. There are four phases to consultation in the lingo that we have in terms of the way we manage it from a policy framework. The third phase of exercising and discussing the conditions that the regulator put in place and looking to see whether there are appropriate accommodations was where we needed to follow through with a two-way dialogue. We needed to demonstrate better that what was said to the Crown and how the Crown worked with indigenous groups was heard, that it was considered, that it actually had a reflective change in the conduct that we were about to do, or that it was not deemed to have met the standard of reasonability that needed to be followed through on.
There's a particular point there that was super clear, that we now have a better set of parameters around—that's super obvious around—what we'll say is two-way dialogue. It's often called that.