Cases Considered: Alberta Wilderness Association v Canada (Minister of the Environment), 2009 FC 710

PDF Version: Is SARA growing teeth?

One of the purposes of endangered species legislation is “to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity” (Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29 (SARA)). A crucial element of any recovery plan must be the identification of, and then subsequently the protection of, critical habitat for listed species. Without such designation and protection it is easy to predict that a listed species will continue on the downward slide to extinction. Habitat protection may not be a sufficient condition to reverse that slide, but it will likely be a necessary condition.

(more…)

PDF version: Lame duck constitutional arguments: a new twist on Syncrude’s Tailings Pond Debacle

The dead duck saga continues. In a previous post on ABlawg (R. v. Syncrude Canada: The Case of The 500 Dead Ducks), Shaun Fluker left off with the words “stay tuned”. Stay tuned, indeed. As it turns out, Syncrude Canada is contemplating making this relatively mundane regulatory (albeit environmentally significant) offence a little more interesting.

(more…)

Case Considered: Kelly v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2009 ABCA 161

PDF version: Charter and Oil and Gas Issues to Await Another Day: A Disappointing End to the Kelly Appeal?

In an earlier post, I suggested that a recent development in the Kelly appeal would likely lead the Court of Appeal to declare the appeal moot (see “An Important Development in the Kelly Appeal“). I also suggested that, although this would not be a surprising decision, it would amount to a disappointing end for an appeal which held out promises of elucidating important legal issues. The Court of Appeal has indeed dismissed the Kelly appeal as moot. Although this result is certainly disappointing from a legal point of view, it is perhaps less so from a societal and public participation point of view.

(more…)

Case considered: Genesis Land Development Corp. v. Alberta, 2009 ABQB 221

PDF version: A rare species of tort in the Spray Valley: Abuse of public office

My work in environmental law began in the late 1990s as part of the opposition to a mountain resort proposed by a land company based in Calgary - Genesis Land Developers - to be located along the eastern boundary of Banff National Park in the Spray Valley. In the planning stages since the 1960s, this resort proposal had only partial regulatory approval by 1998 when its legal ownership was acquired by Genesis. The subsequent Genesis development proposal consisted of a four-season mountain resort in the Spray Valley, including a tour boat operation on Spray Lakes, helicopter and cat-assisted skiing on Tent Ridge, and a 400 bed accommodation facility. Of these three components, the boating operation was essentially approved when Genesis acquired ownership of the proposal. The regulatory approval process was in full swing until May 31, 2000, when the Government of Alberta announced the project would not be approved and the Spray Valley would be designated as a provincial park. This turn of events led to the current proceedings.

(more…)

Document considered: Meeting of the parties to the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, Tromsø, Norway, 17 - 19 March 2009 Outcome of Meeting

PDF Version: The Tromsø meeting of the parties to the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears: a comment on three aspects of the meeting report

A few weeks ago (March 17 - 19, 2009) the parties to the 1973 Polar Bear Agreement met in Tromsø to consider the further implementation of the Agreement. This is a significant breakthrough. Apart from a meeting of the parties back in 1981 when the Parties decided to continue the Agreement in force as contemplated by Article X(6) of the Agreement and in informal meeting of the range states in 2007, the parties have never considered the further implementation of this Agreement.

(more…)

Considered: Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37
Regulations Amending the Exclusion List Regulations, SOR/2009-88
Infrastructure Projects Environmental Assessment Adaptation Regulations, SOR/2009-89
Regulations and Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement

PDF Version: The Eviscerating of Federal Environmental Assessment in Canada

Introduction
A cornerstone of sustainable development is environmental assessment. Through environmental assessment (”EA”) processes regulators identify and assess the environmental, social, and economic consequences of proposed projects to assist them in determining whether they should be approved, and if so, under what conditions. Because of EA, projects are better planned and have reduced environmental impacts and social costs. However, notwithstanding the benefits of EA, recently the federal government has announced its plans to greatly reduce the number of federal EAs in Canada and to limit the application of federal legislation designed to protect our navigable waters and fisheries.

(more…)

PDF Version: R. v. Syncrude Canada: The Case of The 500 Dead Ducks

Alberta Environment and Environment Canada have laid charges against Syncrude Canada in relation to the toxic substances in its Aurora Mines tailing pond that resulted in the death of 500 migratory birds in 2008.

Environment Canada has charged Syncrude for violating section 5.1 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, S.C. 1994, c. 22 by depositing substances harmful to migratory birds in its tailing pond. This is the same information as sworn by John Custer in his private prosecution that commenced in January (See my earlier post Environmental Private Prosecution Update: John Custer v. Syncrude Canada).

(more…)

Cases Considered:  John Custer v. Syncrude Canada

PDF Version: Environmental Private Prosecution Update: John Custer v. Syncrude Canada

On January 7, John Custer swore an information in front of a Justice of the Peace in Edmonton alleging violation by Syncrude Canada of section 5.1 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, S.C. 1994, c. 22 for depositing substances harmful to migratory birds in its Aurora Mines tailing pond. The prohibition in section 5.1 reads as follows:

5.1 (1) No person or vessel shall deposit a substance that is harmful to migratory birds, or permit such a substance to be deposited, in waters or an area frequented by migratory birds or in a place from which the substance may enter such waters or such an area.

(more…)

Cases considered: Kostuch (Informant) v. WA Stephenson Construction (Western) (1990), 75 Alta. L.R.. (2d) 110 (Alta. Prov. Ct.); Kostuch (Informant) v. W.A. Stephenson (Western) (1991), 78 Alta. L.R. (2d) 131 (Alta. Prov. Ct.); Kostuch (Informant) v. W.A. Stephenson Construction (Western) Ltd., [1991] AJ No. 659 (Alta. Q.B.) (QL); R. v. W.A. Stephenson Construction (Western) Ltd., [1992] AJ No. 316 (Alta. C.A.) (QL); R. v. W.A. Stephenson Construction (Western) Ltd., [1992] AJ No. 233 (Alta. Prov. Ct.) (QL); W.A. Stephenson Construction (Western) Ltd. v. Kostuch, [1992] AJ No. 1262 (Alta. Q.B.) (QL); Kostuch v. W.A. Stephenson Construction (Western) Ltd., [1993] A.J. No. 52 (Alta. C.A.) (QL); Kostuch v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1995] A.J. No. 866 (Alta. C.A.), aff’g [1993] A.J. No. 635 (Alta. Q.B.) (QL)

PDF Version: Remembering Martha Kostuch: The Private Prosecution and the Oldman River Dam

I knew of Martha Kostuch primarily by her reputation as a leader in Alberta environmental advocacy. My personal dealings with Martha were limited to brief discussions at the annual roundtable meeting that she organized between the (then) Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and several environmental non-governmental organizations. My sense of loss for Alberta environmentalism with Martha’s passing in April 2008 inspired me to investigate her contribution to Alberta environmental law. This post reflects on a portion of my findings.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited v. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development et al, 2008 FC 598, Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302,

PDF Version:  Back on track to socio-ecological ruin: Kearl oil sands project re-authorized

My initial post on the Kearl project (see Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin) was accurate after all. Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s decision in Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302, that held the Kearl joint panel breached section 34 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37, was simply a brief foray into environmental bliss. On June 6, 2008, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans re-issued the requisite authorization under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, to Imperial Oil, reportedly on identical terms and conditions as set out in the original authorization (see my previous post Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization for more discussion on the nullification of the initial authorization). (more…)