Panel reviews constitute the highest level of federal environmental assessment, with the most rigorous and public process available. However, the Federal Court plays the only oversight role via applications for judicial review, with a limited purview and deferential stance. In the absence of significant judicial oversight, evident through comprehensive case law analysis, academic scrutiny is necessary. This project conducts a case study of a Joint Panel Review, the Cheviot Coal Project, with shared federal and Alberta jurisdiction. Without considering the scientific merits of arguments and working from the Panel's own terms, significant flaws emerge in the Panel's application of its own approach. It failed to operate within the language of significance, especially around the role of mitigation, and wholly failed to explain factors for the public interest. The weaknesses identified in this case study are considered through the prism of subsequent judicial decisions and compared with errors found reviewable.