By: Nigel Bankes
Case commented on: Buffalo River Dene Nation v. Ministry of Energy and Resources and Scott Land and Lease Ltd., 2014 SKQB 69
PDF version: Crown Oil Sands Dispositions and the Duty to Consult
In this decision Justice Currie of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench concluded that the Crown owes no duty to consult a Treaty 10 First Nation when issuing Oil Sands Special Exploratory Permits (OSSEPs) in the traditional territory of that First Nation. In reaching this conclusion Justice Currie focused on his assessment that in issuing a permit the Minister did not make a decision that could affect the use of the land. Justice Currie also distinguished the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, where that Court held that the Crown’s decision to authorize the assignment of tree farm licence could trigger the duty to consult on the basis that it was a high level strategic planning decision that could have subsequent on-the-ground effects. Justice Currie took the view in this case that there was no Crown “plan of action” and no high level strategic planning decisions and therefore no duty. Continue reading
By: Jacqueline L. Weaver
In February 2011, at the invitation of Professor Alastair Lucas at the University of Calgary, I spoke on the U of C campus about the causes and consequences of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as of that date. That invitation led me on a three-year journey that culminated in two lengthy articles, just published in the Houston Journal of International Law, seeking to assess what has changed in offshore safety in the Gulf since the blowout (see “Offshore Safety in the Wake of the Macondo Disaster: Business as Usual or Sea Change?”, (2014) 36 Houston J. Int’l L. 148 (Part One) and “Offshore Safety in the Wake of the Macondo Disaster: the Role of the Regulator” (2014) 36 Houston J. Int’l L. 380 (Part Two)). This brief post summarizes my main findings on the state of safety in the Gulf today. I am deeply grateful for the “push” that the U of C Law School gave me with its invitation to speak and its gracious hospitality during my visit there.
By: Joshua Sealy-Harrington
PDF Version: A Pricked Condom: Fraudulently Obtained Consent or No Consent in the First Place?
Case commented on: R v Hutchinson, 2014 SCC 19
This post discusses a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada addressing consent in the context of sexual assault. The Court was unanimous on its final destination: dismissing the appellant’s appeal of his conviction for sexual assault. However, the Court narrowly split, 4-3, on the path taken to get there. More specifically, the Court split on whether deliberately and secretly sabotaging a condom renders sexual activity with that condom non-consensual because the victim’s consent was obtained fraudulently or because she never consented in the first place. This post reviews these two alternate approaches, notes their subtle overlap, and concludes that the state of consent in Canadian law is left unclear following this decision.
On April 4, 2014, Can LII launched a new project called Can LII Connects. This site will provide summaries of and commentary on Canadian cases reported on Can LII. Case comments will be accessible via Can LII Connects and via the Can LII website, and Can LII Connects also has a blog. ABlawg was very pleased to be asked to participate in this project as one of a few law blogs to post historical content in time for the launch. To access ABlawg’s content on Can LII Connects, readers can use the Search function or choose to filter by Publisher. Readers can concur with comments on Can LII Connects, or add their own commentary. All new case comments on ABlawg will be cross-posted to Can LII Connects from here on in. We encourage our readers to check out this excellent new resource.