Month: February 2012 Page 1 of 2

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Competing Uses of Geological Space: Resolving Conflicts Between Production and Natural Gas Storage

Decision Commented On: Kallisto Energy Corp. Application for a Well Licence Crossfield East Field, 2012 ABERCB 005, February 24, 2012

This decision deals with the potential for conflict between conventional oil and gas operations and natural gas storage projects.

The idea of resource use or landscape level conflicts is familiar to us in the context of the use of the surface. Consider, for example, the conflicts between recreation and forestry interests, between forestry and oil sands or conventional oil and gas exploration. The idea of competing uses of the subsurface is less familiar but our search for new resources or the application of new technologies to known resources is increasing the potential for those subsurface conflicts. High pressure fracturing operations to stimulate production either from shallow oil formations or deeper shale gas formations raises concerns about the effect of these operations on potable groundwater resources, and proposals to sequester carbon dioxide in saline formations or depleted oil or gas reservoirs raises concerns of sterilizing hydrocarbon resources. The province’s new CCS regime explicitly addresses this scenario through a provision in the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, (OGCA) RSA 2000, c O-6, s. 39(1.1) which provides that the ERCB “may not approve a scheme for the disposal of captured carbon dioxide to an underground formation…unless the [applicant] satisfies the Board that the injection of the captured carbon dioxide will not interfere with (a) the recovery or conservation of oil or gas, or (b) an existing use of the underground formation for the storage of oil or gas.”

I Fought the Law: Civil Disobedience and the Law in Canada

By Jennifer Koshan

On February 27, 2012

In Constitutional, Human Rights, Municipal Law

PDF version: I Fought the Law: Civil Disobedience and the Law in Canada

Cases commented on: Calgary (City) v Bullock (Occupy Calgary), 2011 ABQB 764;
Batty v City of Toronto, 2011 ONSC 6862; R v SA, 2011 ABPC 269; R v Charlebois, 2011 ABPC 238, etc.

On February 1, 2012, I participated in a public forum entitled “Civil Disobedience: Concept, Law and Practice” organized by the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership. This post is an elaboration of my remarks at the forum on how civil disobedience is handled under Canadian law. I will review some recent cases on civil disobedience, including the Occupy litigation, to examine issues such as whether civil disobedience may be protected under the Charter, and if not, what sorts of sanctions protestors might expect to face.

Federal Court of Appeal confirms that a SARA protection statement must offer the critical habitat of a listed species real legal and non-discretionary protection

By Nigel Bankes

On February 23, 2012

In Administrative Law, Protection of Species

Case commented on: Minister of Fisheries and Oceans v. David Suzuki Foundation (the Killer Whale case) 2012 FCA 40

PDF Version: Federal Court of Appeal confirms that a SARA protection statement must offer the critical habitat of a listed species real legal and non-discretionary protection

A unanimous Federal Court of Appeal in a decision authored by Justice Mainville has largely affirmed Justice Russell’s decision at trial in a case dealing with the legal protection of the critical habitat of two populations of killer whale listed as threatened or endangered under the terms of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), SC 2002, c 29. ABlawg’s post on the trial decision is available here: “SARA has a spine as well as teeth.”

Refining Vexatious Litigant and Vexatious Spokesperson Jurisprudence

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On February 21, 2012

In Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court, Vexatious Litigants

Case considered: Allen v Gray, 2012 ABQB 66

PDF version: Refining Vexatious Litigant and Vexatious Spokesperson Jurisprudence

Alberta’s new vexatious litigant provisions have been in force for almost five years now and a useful body of precedent has been developed. Novel points continue to arise, but these tend to be minor ones. Nevertheless, Allen v Gray makes three useful legal points: (1) case law from before the 2007 amendments continues to be useful, in part because the term “vexatious” is undefined; (2) it is irrelevant whether the alleged vexatious litigant is prosecuting (or defending) his or her own action or acting as an agent for another person (the “vexatious spokesperson”); and (3) the new provisions are of no help in preventing vexatious administrative proceedings.

British Columbia Supreme Court Releases Reference Decision on Polygamy – One Alberta Connection

By Linda McKay-Panos

On February 15, 2012

In Constitutional, Criminal, Family

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: British Columbia Supreme Court Releases Reference Decision on Polygamy – One Alberta Connection

Case Commented On: Reference re: Section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, 2011 BCSC 1588

In 2005, Brian Seaman, Melissa Luhtanen and I, on behalf of the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre (ACLRC), were engaged by Status of Women Canada to research and comment on specific issues with regard to Criminal Code section 293 (anti-polygamy provision). Our conclusions may have been surprising to some people because it appeared that we erred on the side of equality at the expense of civil liberties. However, the recent British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC) decision, at least temporarily, as it may be overruled on appeal, seems to have vindicated our position. Looking at the list of intervenors (11 of them) and the length of the judgment itself, it seems that the Court dealt with the issues in a comprehensive manner.