British Columbia issued amended permits to a coal company, authorizing it to extend exploratory work for mining within the traditional territory of the West Moberly First Nations, parties to Treaty 8 (1899). The petitioners alleged that the work would negatively impact their treaty right to hunt caribou and that they had not been adequately consulted. The province argued that judicial review was not the proper procedure for challenging the permits, but the BC Court of Appeal disagreed, citing Beckman v. Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation (2010) in support. The court also decided that the trial judge was entitled to take into account the impact of past decline of the caribou herd. Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (2010) was distinguishable on the facts, as the challenged Crown action in that case would not have any new adverse impact on the claimed rights. The potential impact of expanded mining, if the exploratory work authorized by the permits recommended it, could also be considered. The court held that the consultation engaged in by the government officials had not been meaningful and reasonable, in part because they failed to understand or appreciate the nature of the constitutional hunting rights of the petitioners. The court "stayed" the permits (put them on hold) and ordered that the parties engage in meaningful consultation in accordance with the court's reasons.