New on ABlawg

PDF version: Supreme Court of Canada Saves Timing for the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner 

Decision considered: Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011 SCC 61

This case has been followed closely by those interested in information and privacy procedures. The issues raised by the decision were discussed in my previous blog (see here). [Editor’s note, also see Alice Woolley’s ABlawg on this decision True Questions of Jurisdiction: Administrative Law’s Unicorns]

In sum, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) received complaints that the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) had disclosed personal information in contravention of Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act, SA 2003 c P-6.5 (PIPA). At the relevant time, subsection 50(5) provided that an inquiry must be completed within 90 days of the complaint being received, unless the IPC notified the parties that he or she was extending the time period. The IPC took 22 months from the initial complaint before extending the date on which the inquiry would be concluded. Then, seven months later, an adjudicator issued an order on behalf of the IPC, finding that ATA had contravened the PIPA. The ATA applied for judicial review, arguing for the first time that the IPC had lost jurisdiction for failing to extend the time period for the inquiry within 90 days of the complaint being received. The chambers judge quashed the adjudicator’s decision on the basis of timing, and the majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the chambers judge’s decision. As noted in the blog above, this decision prompted the rare move on the part of the IPC, who publicly expressed concern about the implications of the Court of Appeal ruling.

(more…)

PDF version: The severance of a water right from a purchase and sale of land 

Case commented on: Royal Bank of Canada v Hirsche Herefords, 2012 ABQB 32 

This decision concludes that a provincial water licence can be contingently severed from the land or undertaking to which it is appurtenant by way of an agreement of sale and the subsequent registered transfer. The contingency is the Director’s approval of the transfer of the water licence to another party under the terms of sections 81 - 82 of the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-5. The decision also confirms the emergence of a water rights market in southern Alberta.

(more…)

PDF version: Senate Reform on the Horizon: Does the Parliament of Canada have the power to unilaterally change the terms and selection method of Senators? 

Legislation considered: Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits (”Senate Reform Act”), 41st Parliament, 1st Session

After a very long journey, Canadians may be reaching the end of the long road to Senate reform. In the recently introduced Senate Reform Act the federal government is proposing a framework for electing senate nominees, and proposing to significantly reduce Senator term limits. Questions have been raised about Parliament’s unilateral ability to effect these reforms without provincial consent. This comment will explore the constitutional validity of the Senate Reform Act in terms of Parliament’s jurisdiction to unilaterally amend the Canadian Constitution. It will be suggested that while the proposed term limit is likely constitutionally valid, the proposed framework and legal obligation of the Prime Minister to consider elected Senate nominees is beyond Parliament’s sole power.

(more…)

 PDF version: The Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel and the Governor in Council

Documents commented on: (1) An open letter from the Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, on Canada’s commitment to diversify our energy markets and the need to further streamline the regulatory process in order to advance Canada’s national economic interest, January 9, 2012;

(2) National Energy Board Act, RSC 1985, c N-7, s 52;

(3) Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, SC 1992, c 37, s 37.

On January 9, 2012, the day before the hearings by a Joint Review Panel (JRP) were due to open for the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline (NGP), the federal Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver took the extraordinary step of issuing an Open Letter to Canadians. He followed this up with a series of media appearances. In his letter Minister Oliver made four main points. First, Canada needs to diversify its export markets for many products including oil. Second, “environmental and other radical groups” seek to block this opportunity and any underlying projects. Third, these “radicals” will “hijack our regulatory system,” stack public hearings, “kill good projects,” exploit any opportunity they can to delay project reviews. These radicals have access to foreign money to implement their goals. The delays that ensue are unacceptable. Fourth, Canada needs a fair and independent process to assess projects based on science and the facts - but the current system is out of balance and “is broken.”

(more…)

 PDF version: Jurisdiction can be a Significant Consideration in Human Rights Cases

Case considered: British Columbia (Workers Compensation Board) v Figliola (”Figliola“), 2011 SCC

A recent SCC case again demonstrates the importance of jurisdiction in human rights cases. In Alberta, and in other provinces, a number of tribunals may have human rights jurisdiction. Thus, in some situations, complainants have potential access to more than one tribunal to resolve their issues. This can, however, lead to challenges regarding accountability, consistency, and efficiency. On the one hand, complainants want a fair, yet reviewable resolution of their human rights issue-on the other hand, respondents would like a final resolution of the complaint and to know the matter is not subject to re-litigation by a second tribunal (See: The Court, Marina Chernenko, “Neighbouring Tribunals and ‘Lateral Adjudicative Poaching’: Forum Shopping for Human Rights in British Columbia v. Figliola“)

(more…)

PDF version: CCS is now a CDM Project Activity  

Decision commented on: Decision -/CMP.7 Modalities and procedures for carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations as clean development mechanism project activities
- adopted in December 2011.

The 17th United Nations Climate Change Conference and the seventh meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) took place in Durban in November-December 2011 and brought hope again to the international community fighting climate change. The negotiations were reasonably successful and blended together the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, the Bali Action Plan, and the Cancun Agreements, concluding with a decision adopted by Parties that a universal legal agreement on climate change is to be adopted as soon as possible, but no later than 2015.

(more…)

Case considered: Calgary (City) v Alberta (Municipal Government Board), 2012 ABCA 13

On January 16, 2012 the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a judgment that applies the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 - ruling in Calgary (City) v Alberta (Municipal Government Board), 2012 ABCA 13 that the adequacy of reasons given by a statutory decision-maker are to be reviewed as a matter of substantive review on the reasonableness standard.

The decision in question results by way of appeal by the City of Calgary from Madam Justice Romaine’s decision in Calgary (City) v Alberta (Municipal Government Board), 2010 ABQB 719. I previously discussed that decision in a December 2010 Ablawg post (see here) and I have recently commented on the Supreme Court’s Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union decision (see here).

The purpose of this short comment is simply to note that the Court of Appeal has now applied the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent change in the law on sufficiency of reasons, and that earlier jurisprudence on reviewing the sufficiency of reasons given by a statutory decision-maker should be read with caution.

PDF version: True Questions of Jurisdiction: Administrative Law’s Unicorns?

Decision considered: Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teachers Association, 2011 SCC 61 

Introduction

In its recent decision reversing the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teachers’ Association (Teachers’ Association), 2010 ABCA 26, the Supreme Court of Canada made significant statements with respect to issues of administrative law. In particular, a majority of the Court held:

1. When an issue is not raised before an administrative decision-maker it may nonetheless be raised in an application for judicial review. A court may, however, exercise its “discretion not to consider an issue raised for the first time on judicial review where it would be inappropriate to do so” (para 22).
2. In such cases deference may still be granted: “Where the reviewing court finds that the tribunal has made an implicit decision on a critical issue, the deference due to the tribunal does not disappear because the issue was not raised before the tribunal” (para 50).
3. In order to be deferential in such circumstances, the court may take into account the reasons that the administrator could have given had the issue been put before it. If a “reasonable basis for the decision is apparent to the reviewing court” then that will suffice (para 55). The court may also look at reasons offered by the administrative decision-maker on the issue in other cases to determine whether the decision-maker’s approach to the issue is reasonable. In some circumstances the court may remit the matter to the decision-maker to allow reasons to be prepared.
4. Finally, and most significantly, a majority of the Court, in reasons prepared by Justice Rothstein, called into question the ability to identify a “true question of jurisdiction” to which deference should not be granted. Justice Rothstein stated that he was “unable to provide a definition of what might constitute a true question of jurisdiction” (para 42).
5. Justice Rothstein held that when an administrative decision-maker interprets its home statute it is presumptively entitled to deference (para 34). Deference will not be offered where the interpretation raises constitutional questions, a question regarding the jurisdictional lines between tribunals or a question of law “that is of central importance to the legal system as a whole and that is outside the adjudicator’s expertise” (para 43). If a party claims that deference is not owed because the matter is a true question of jurisdiction, that party will “be required to demonstrate why the court should not review a tribunal’s interpretation of its home statute on the deferential standard of reasonableness” (para 39).
6. Finally, Justice Rothstein held that once a deferential standard has been identified, it is not necessary to question further how deferential the court should be: “Once it is determined that a review is to be conducted on a reasonableness standard, there is no second assessment of how intensely the review is to be conducted” (para 47).  

(more…)

PDF version: Rasouli v Sunnybrook Health Services Centre: End of Life matters reach the Supreme Court of Canada

Cases Considered: Rasouli v Sunnybrook Health Services Centre, 2011 ONCA 482

This case involves the issue of consent under Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act, 1996, SO, 1996 c 2, Schedule “A” (the “Act”). While no similar law exists in Alberta, the case, through its discussion of the conflict between doctors’ ability to determine treatment, and the patient’s ability to refuse, raises issues that extend beyond the legislative boundaries of Ontario.

(more…)

PDF version: Non-biological father from separated same-sex couple declared a legal parent 

Decision considered: D.W.H. v D.J.R., 2011 ABQB 608

Background

Mr. H. and Mr. R. lived together as partners and planned to have a baby through a surrogate mother. Mr. R’s sperm was used to conceive the baby, S, with Ms. D as the surrogate mother. Ms. D lived with the two fathers and Mr. R when the baby was first born. After that, the baby lived with the two male partners and visited the surrogate mother once or twice a week. The couple separated when S was 3 years old and Mr. H. applied for access. Madame Justice Eidsvik in D.W.H. v D.J.R., 2009 ABQB 438 found that the child had a mother (who was the surrogate), but no father who could be recognized in law (see my previous post “Gay fathers not seen as a parental unit under the Family Law Act“). Mr. H was given access until November 2007 when, based on a parenting assessment, contact was discontinued. Mr. H.’s relationship with S has since almost completely ceased. Mr. H. applied for guardianship but his application was opposed.

(more…)

PDF version: “The proof of the pudding is in the eating” that litigation is not the best way to quantify interim costs.

Case considered: R v Caron, 2011 ABCA 385

Gilles Caron has been a very present figure before the Alberta courts since ABlawg began posting comments in late 2007 (see here). Caron is challenging the constitutionality of Alberta’s legislation on the basis that the province’s laws are not enacted in both English and French. That issue is now before the Court of Appeal (see 2010 ABCA 343 and here). Caron’s litigation has also involved an access to justice component in that he has pursued interim costs awards to fund his litigation. That issue went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that the Alberta government was required to fund Caron’s language rights challenge (see 2011 SCC 5, [2011] 1 SCR 78 and here). The lingering question was, to what extent was such funding required? That issue was recently considered by the Alberta Court of Appeal. In a decision written by Justice Jean Côté, Caron was awarded far less funding than he sought for the Court of Appeal litigation, and in the form of a loan rather than a grant (see 2011 ABCA 385).

(more…)

PDF version: Giving deference to the adequacy of reasons

Case considered: Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62

Earlier this month the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, upholding the ruling of an arbitrator concerning vacation entitlements in a labour dispute. This unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision written by Madam Justice Abella has changed the law in Alberta governing judicial review for adequacy of reasons provided by an administrative decision-maker. For earlier commentary and background for this post, readers should review my December 2010 ABlawg entitled “What is the applicable standard of review in assessing the adequacy of reasons?” The issue concerns the measure of judicial deference owed to an administrative decision-maker in reviewing the adequacy of reasons given for decision. (more…)

PDF version: Blow over? Think twice before blaming it on the flu. 

Decision considered: R v Kasim, 2011 ABCA 236.

The Respondent claimed to have drunk no more than 3 or 4 beers between 7 and 8:30 p.m. on September 18, 2008. He was behind the wheel soon after. At about 9 p.m. he complied with a lawful demand for an Intoxilyzer breath sample and the two samples he provided measured 100 mg percent, or 20 mg percent over the legal maximum of 80 mg of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. At trial the Respondent testified that his body temperature was elevated as he was suffering from the flu or a fever that day. This testimony was corroborated, and the trial judge accepted it. The Respondent’s expert witness, Dr. Malicky, testified that given the Respondent’s elimination rate, and an elevated body temperature, “his blood alcohol level at the time should have been approximately 36 mg percent if he had three containers of beer, and 60 mg percent if he had four containers of beer” (R v Kasim, [2010] AJ No 969, para 64). The Respondent argued that the test results were therefore askew and that raised a reasonable doubt as to whether he the violated the Criminal Code (RSC, 1985, c C-46). Both the Provincial Court judge and Queen’s Bench summary conviction appeal judge found for the Respondent. By consent order the Crown appealed to the Court of Appeal on a single issue: “The summary conviction appeal judge erred in law in her interpretation of s. 258(1) (c) of the Criminal Code” (CA decision at para 7). These Criminal Code provisions set out presumptions that subject to certain time and other limitations Intoxilyzer readings of blood alcohol are accurate. The provisions also limit permissible challenges to the presumed accuracy.

(more…)

PDF version: Waiver of Dispute Resolution under the New Rules

Case considered: IBM Canada Limited v Kossovan, 2011 ABQB 621.

In IBM Canada Limited v Kossovan, Mr. Justice Bryan E. Mahoney provided the first judicial interpretation of an important new provision in the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 (New Rules). The provision in question - Rule 4.16(2) — governs applications to waive the dispute resolution processes mandated by Rule 4.02(e) of the New Rules. As Justice Mahoney notes (at para 4), “[w]hile the New Rules contemplate circumstances wherein the requirement might be waived, as yet, there is little guidance from our Court as to how this Rule is to be interpreted.” Using case law from other jurisdictions that have adopted similar mandatory dispute resolution procedures, this decision begins to provide that guidance. However, as much of that guidance is based on anecdotal evidence and intuitions about the effectiveness of dispute resolution, it is to be hoped that the mandatory dispute resolution provisions of the New Rules will be empirically evaluated for both costs and benefits in the near future.

(more…)

PDF version: Carbon capture and storage in Alberta: draft offset Protocol

Document and regulations commented on: Government of Alberta, Draft Quantification Protocol for the Capture of CO2 and Storage in Deep Saline Aquifers, December 2011 and Specified Gas Emitters Amendment Regulation, Alta Reg 139/2007, Alta Reg 127/2011 at pp. 448 - 451.

While there has been some suggestion that the post-Stelmach provincial government is less enthusiastic than its predecessor about carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a silver bullet to deliver on provincial plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the province will go ahead with at least three of the four short-listed CCS projects that are to receive provincial government financial support: the Alberta Carbon Trunkline Project, Shell’s Quest Project and the Swan Hills Synfuels project. The one outstanding project is TransAlta’s (TAU) Project Pioneer. The province has yet to finalize a deal with TAU (and may never do so) but I gather that this has more to do with problems with the technology that TAU\Alstom has been proposing to use than any provincial cold feet.

(more…)

PDF version: A Step Forward for CCS as a CDM Project Activity

Report commented on: Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) Technical Workshop on the eligibility of carbon capture and storage projects under the clean development mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, released on November 8th, 2011.

In December 2010, the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (CMP) to the Kyoto Protocol (KP), by its decision 7/CMP.6, decided that carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) in geological formations would be eligible as a project activity under the clean development mechanism (CDM), provided that the following issues could be addressed and resolved in a satisfactory manner:

- non-permanence, including long-term permanence;
- measuring, reporting and verification;
- environmental impacts;
- project activity boundaries;
- international law;
- liability;
- the potential for perverse outcomes;
- safety ,and
- insurance coverage and compensation for damages caused due to seepage or leakage.

(See also Nigel Bankes’ blog on CCS and CDM: the eligibility of carbon capture and storage projects under the clean development mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol - the Cancun Meeting of the Conference of the Parties)

Parties and admitted observer organizations were invited to submit their views on how to address and manage these issues. Ten admitted observer organizations and Australia, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), the European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Norway, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and USA (as an observer state to KP) responded the invitation. Also, the Secretariat hosted a technical workshop with technical and legal experts to consider these submissions and to discuss the issues referred to in decision 7/CMP.6. The workshop, held in Abu Dhabi on September 7th and 8th 2011 clarified some of the technical and legal issues in its report and suggested possible solutions.

(more…)

PDF version: The theory and the practice of well abandonment and surface reclamation in Alberta: the latest episode in the dismal saga of Sarg Oils Limited

Decision commented on: Sarg Oils Limited, Review of Abandonment Orders AD 2006-17, AD 2006-17A, AD 2006-18, AD 2006-19 and AD 2006-20, November 15, 2011, 2011 AERCB 032.

Well over ten years ago Sarg Oils sold oil and gas assets to another party. The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) refused to consent to the transfer of the well licences associated with those assets and as a result Sarg was left with the responsibility of abandoning those facilities. And when Sarg refused, the ERCB did the job itself and sent the bill to Sarg; and when Sarg didn’t pay (and the Court of Appeal ruled that this was a lawful debt owing to the Board: ERCB v Sarg Oils Ltd, 2002 ABCA 174) the ERCB garnisheed other assets of Sarg (the Southern Alberta assets). Sarg didn’t like that and shut the facilities in - owing by this time in excess of $1 million. The Board informed the province of this dastardly deed and the province triggered the procedures under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Tenure Regulation (Alta Reg 267/1997, s18) to terminate the leases on those Southern Alberta assets. Since Sarg no longer had the right to exploit the resources on those terminated leases, the ERCB ordered Sarg (2006) to abandon the related wells and facilities. Sarg did nothing about this except to seek a section 40 review (this application) under the Energy Resources Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c E-10) of the Board orders. And now, five years later, the Board has concluded that the orders “are valid and will be upheld” (at para 148). And now, Sarg must really get on with it! Whew! Unless of course Sarg seeks leave to appeal.

(more…)

PDF version: The Repeal of the Long Gun Registry: A Violation of the Federal Government’s Obligations Concerning Violence Against Women?

Legislation considered: Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (”Ending the Long-gun Registry Act”), 41st Parliament, 1st Session

December 6, 2011 was the National Day of Remembrance for Violence Against Women, which marked the 22nd anniversary of the Montreal Massacre. The Globe and Mail’s Jane Taber indicated that “government MPs [were] purposely shut out from officially speaking at and attending an event on Parliament Hill to honour the 14 young women who were shot dead in 1989,” because the government is about to repeal the long gun registry (see Bill C-19). The Montreal Massacre was one of the pressure points for the registry, as was the use of firearms in crimes of domestic violence. When the Alberta government challenged the constitutionality of the registry, which was implemented via the Firearms Act, SC 1995, ch 39, as an amendment to the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court found that it was properly enacted under the federal government’s criminal law powers (see Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), 2000 SCC 31, [2000] 1 SCR 783 at paras 43, 59). The enactment of the law creating the registry was constitutional; but is its repeal unlawful? I think an argument can be made that the federal government’s abolishment of the long gun registry is unconstitutional on Charter grounds, as well as contrary to international law.

(more…)

PDF version: Polar Bear ‘Special Concern’ Designation Raises Some Concerns of Its Own

Decision considered: Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Species at Risk Act SOR/2011-233 October 27, 2011.

On November 10, 2011, the Federal Government released its decision to list the polar bear as “special concern” under Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29, hereinafter “SARA”). This decision has been a long time coming. This post reflects on the significance of the decision, and specifically two concerns it raises with the listing process under SARA.

(more…)

PDF version: Why Canada should not withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol 

Rumour\decision commented on: Canada will withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol

Rumours abound that Canada will withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol later this month. While Canada’s Minister of the Environment, Peter Kent, will not confirm these rumours (Montreal Gazette, November 29, 2011) there is reason for thinking that withdrawal is being actively considered if not already decided on (see “Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol next month“?

This post discusses four questions. First, what is the law pertaining to withdrawal from an international environmental agreement (MEA)? Second, why is withdrawal being considered and what other options are available? Third, what might be some of the ramifications of a Canadian withdrawal? And fourth, what is the legal nature of the current commitment: whom does it bind?

(more…)