PDF version: The Elephant in the Courtroom

Case Considered: Reece v Edmonton (City), 2011 ABCA 238

In March 2011 the Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Zoocheck Canada, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Tove Reece (collectively referred to as Zoocheck here) from Justice John Rooke’s August 2010 decision to strike Zoocheck’s application for a declaration that the City of Edmonton is violating the Animal Protection Act, RSA 2000 c. A-41 by keeping Lucy the Elephant in its Valley Zoo. See my previous ABlawg comment Lucy the Elephant v Edmonton (City) for some analysis of Justice Rooke’s decision (Reece v Edmonton (City), 2010 ABQB 538), the background concerning Lucy’s health problems and living conditions in the zoo, the applicable legislative framework, and the City’s motion to strike the Zoocheck application. In its August 2011 Reece v Edmonton (City) decision the Court of Appeal dismisses the Zoocheck appeal, with the majority written by Justice Frans Slatter upholding the finding at the Court of Queen’s Bench that the application for a declaration constitutes an abuse of process. In her lengthy dissenting opinion, Madame Justice Catherine Fraser rules the Zoocheck application is not an abuse of process and should go to trial. This Court of Appeal decision is noteworthy to me for three reasons: (1) the sharp contrast of legal theory underlying the majority and the dissent; (2) the environmental ethic informing Justice Fraser’s dissent; and (3) the comments made by Justice Fraser concerning the availability of public interest standing.

(more…)

PDF version: The continuing mystery of standing at the Energy Resources Conservation Board 

Case considered: West Energy/Daylight Energy - Section 39 review hearing re: Linda McGinn, 2011 ABERCB 002

A couple weeks ago on ABlawg I suggested that the law governing standing to contest an energy project in front of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) is becoming unglued (see The problem of costs at the Energy Resources Conservation Board: Leave to appeal granted in Kelly #4).The first change came out of the Court of Appeal’s October 2009 decision in Kelly v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board, 2009 ABCA 349, (and see The Problem of Locus Standi at the Energy Resources Conservation Board: A Diceyan Solution). The Court of Appeal has subsequently granted two leave applications made by Susan Kelly that concern the interpretation of sections 26 and 28 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act (ERCA), R.S.A. 2000, c. E-10. These additional appeals have yet to be heard, but I am certain the Court’s ruling in both matters will result in further changes to the law concerning who must be heard at the ERCB. The ERCB’s recent standing ruling in West Energy/Daylight Energy Section 39 Review Decision, 2011 ABERCB 002 suggests to me that the Board has lost its way on how to apply section 26(2) of the ERCA.

(more…)

PDF version: The problem of costs at the Energy Resources Conservation Board: Leave to appeal granted in Kelly #4 

Case considered: Kelly v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2011 ABCA 19

The Court of Appeal has granted leave on a matter that I believe has the potential to produce one of the most significant decisions from the Court in some time concerning energy and environmental law in Alberta. This outcome is largely due to the persistence of Susan Kelly and many other residents, along with their counsel Jennifer Klimek, who have appeared in front of the Court numerous times in recent years seeking leave to appeal decisions by the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) that issue sour gas well licences near their homes in the Drayton Valley region southwest of Edmonton. Kelly et al have been very successful in obtaining the Court’s permission to appeal several ERCB decisions, and one result of their efforts is that the law governing the ERCB is changing. (See my previous ABlawg posts The Problem of Locus Standi at the Energy Resources Conservation Board: A Diceyan Solution and The Problem of Locus Standi at the Energy Resources Conservation Board: Leave to appeal granted in Kelly #2.

(more…)

PDF version: The problem of Locus Standi at the Energy Resources Conservation Board: Leave to appeal granted in Kelly #2 

Case Considered: Kelly v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2010 ABCA 307

On October 15, 2010 the Court of Appeal granted leave to Susan Kelly and Lillian Duperron to appeal the decision of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) denying them an opportunity to oppose the drilling of a sour gas well. West Energy proposes to drill the well at a location approximately 6 kilometers from their respective residences. Justice Frans Slatter granted leave to appeal on two questions, one of which concerns the proximity between a residence and the contested well and its application towards whether a person’s rights may be directly and adversely affected by the well. Readers not familiar with the law concerning standing to oppose an energy project being considered by the ERCB may wish to consult previous ABlawg posts for background on this matter (For an overview and links to previous postings see Nickie Vlavianos’ July 2010 ABlawg post, “Still more questions about standing before the ERCB“).

(more…)

PDF version: Lucy the Elephant v. Edmonton (City) 

Case considered: Reece v. Edmonton (City), 2010 ABQB 538

Lucy is a 34 year old elephant who lives in the Edmonton Valley Zoo. In recent years Lucy has attracted significant media and celebrity attention, as animal welfare activists have campaigned for her transfer to a warmer climate (details on the campaign and Lucy herself are documented here). Activists insist that Lucy is in distress because of her living conditions in the Edmonton zoo. Media celebrities including William Shatner and Bob Barker have called upon the City of Edmonton to allow Lucy to move south. Lucy’s plight has attracted the attention of the local media as well (see “Free Lucy the elephant: protesters“, CBC News). The Valley Zoo insists Lucy is fine and cannot be safely moved.

In the Fall of 2009, ZooCheck Canada and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) retained Ontario lawyer Clayton Ruby to advise them on possible legal remedies for Lucy. In February 2010 ZooCheck, PETA, and a local Alberta resident (Tove Reece) filed an Originating Notice in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench seeking a judicial declaration that the City of Edmonton (as operator of the Valley Zoo) was contravening section 2 of the Animal Protection Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-41, in its treatment of Lucy at the Valley Zoo. Associate Chief Justice John Rooke heard the ZooCheck application along with the City’s motion to strike the proceeding under Rule 129 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 390/1968. In Reece v. Edmonton (City), 2010 ABQB 538 Justice Rooke grants the City’s motion to strike on the basis that the ZooCheck/PETA application is an abuse of process for two reasons: (1) the application does not conform with the legislative path for bringing this issue to the Court; (2) no individual can bring a civil action to enforce criminal law. Justice Rooke also makes some obiter statements on standing which I comment on below.

(more…)

PDF version: The Issues and Challenges with Public Participation in Energy and Natural Resources Development in Alberta 

Introduction

Public participation is a key feature of energy and natural resources development in Alberta. The provincial government often expresses its desire for participation by Albertans in its policy making and planning processes. At the project approval stage, project proponents regularly conduct public consultation programs and regulatory boards hold public hearings and award costs to interveners.

Yet there are signs that public participation is not all that it seems in the Alberta energy and resources development context. Albertans seem frustrated and dissatisfied with the current level or type of public participation available: see, for example, Dan Woynillowicz & Steve Kennett, “Passage of Bill 46 Perpetuates EUB Shortcomings” (2007). Applications for leave to appeal decisions of energy tribunals on issues of public participation and procedural fairness seem to be on the rise: see, for example, Prince v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2010 ABCA 214, Cheyne v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2009 ABCA 94, and Kelly v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 52.

The Canadian Institute of Resources Law (CIRL) at the University of Calgary is currently engaged in a research project, funded by the Alberta Law Foundation, which is focusing on legal and policy questions in relation to public participation in the Alberta energy and natural resources development context. To obtain input on the issues and challenges facing public participation in this context, CIRL held a Round Table discussion at the University of Calgary on April 16, 2010. There were 20 participants in attendance, all of whom have experience with public participation issues in the energy and natural resources development context. There was representation from landowners, regulators, industry, the regulatory bar, environmental and natural resources organizations, multi-stakeholder consultation groups, policy and energy consultants, and academia.

(more…)

PDF version: Still More Questions about Standing before the ERCB 

Case Considered: Prince v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2010 ABCA 214

Leave to appeal applications from standing decisions of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) continue to be heard almost, it seems, regularly. Some cases raise questions about the first part of the standing test, whether a “right” has been established that may be affected by a proposed energy project. Others focus on the second part of the test, whether possible direct and adverse effects have been demonstrated. Sometimes the Court of Appeal grants leave; sometimes it does not. Prince v. Alberta (ERCB) is another case of leave denied. It is also yet another case that raises important questions about the proper interpretation of the test for standing. Isn’t it time for legislative direction?

(more…)

Case considered: R. v. B.P., 2010 ABQB 204

PDF version: Lawyer, Not Intervenor

In R. v. B.P., 2010 ABQB 204, Madam Justice Strekaf denied intervenor status to the former lawyer for the appellant accused. The accused had entered a plea to a charge of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. He sought to have the plea set aside on the basis of ineffective assistance by his trial lawyer, Mr. McAviney. Mr. McAviney sought intervenor status in the appeal on the basis that the argument for ineffective assistance of counsel gave him a “direct interest in the outcome of the case” (B.P. at para. 8). He suggested that the “real lis” of the appeal was between Mr. McAviney and the accused, rather than between the accused and the Crown.

(more…)

Case considered: Freehold Petroleum and Natural Gas Owners Association v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2010 ABCA 125

In Freehold Petroleum and Natural Gas Owners Association, Madam Justice Elizabeth McFayden dismisses an application for leave to appeal an Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) hearing costs decision that relates to an earlier ERCB decision concerning a mineral lease dispute. This Court of Appeal decision and the underlying ERCB decisions are noteworthy to me for two reasons: (1) the ERCB granted full hearing participation rights to the Freehold Petroleum and Natural Gas Owners Association (the Freehold Owners Association) despite the fact it does not have an interest in land; and (2) the Court of Appeal defers to the ERCB on what I consider to be an unreasonable exercise of its discretion on the costs matter. I will comment on each of these points in turn after briefly summarizing the facts.

(more…)

Case considered: Hunt Oil Company of Canada Inc v. Galleon Energy Inc, 2010 ABQB 212

PDF version: The rule of capture is not the only no liability rule in the oil and gas business

This decision confirms that where B intervenes in an ERCB (Energy Resources Conservation Board) application commenced by C and the result of that intervention is that C incurs delays in being able to achieve increased levels of oil or natural gas production, C has no cause of action against B for damages that C suffers as a result of the delay. Furthermore, any effort by C to use the courts to effect a recovery from B may be an abuse of process.

(more…)