Is section 8(1) of the 2019 Decision barred judicial review?

ICM and LICM argued that section 8(1) is a privative clause that bars judicial review of the 2019 Decision, given that there is neither evidence of bad faith by LICM nor an argument that section 8(1) is unconstitutional. They pointed to Crevier v. A.G. (Québec) et al., 1981 CanLII 30 (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220, where the court stated, at pages 236-7: … It is now unquestioned that privative clauses may, when properly framed, effectively oust judicial review on questions of law and, indeed, on other issues not touching jurisdiction. …

Section 8(1) is not, however, a privative clause that governs the scope of judicial review of decisions of LICM or any other entity. It is an immunity clause, intended to provide protection from civil liability and damages. In Ernst v. Alberta Energy Regulator, 2017 SCC 1 (CanLII), the court stated:

… the statutory immunity clause cannot bar access to judicial review: Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General), 1981 CanLII 30 (SCC), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220.