Cases Considered: Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited v. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development et al, 2008 FC 598

PDF Version: Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization

The Federal Court’s decision in Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302, is proving to have more significance than I anticipated in my initial blog (see Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin). In that judgment, Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer held the Kearl joint panel erred in law by failing to comply with one of the duties imposed upon it by section 34 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans informed Imperial Oil that, as a consequence of the joint panel’s error in law, the Kearl project authorization issued by the Minister pursuant to the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, was a nullity. In correspondence addressed to Imperial Oil, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stated in part:

Please be advised that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is of the view that, as a result of the Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s decision, the Authorization for Works or Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat and the Authorization to Destroy Fish by any means other than Fishing (ED-03-2806) which was issued by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act to Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited on February 12, 2008, is a nullity.
(more…)

Cases Considered: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9

PDF Version:  Dunsmuir: Much Ado about Nothing

The majority judgment in Dunsmuir, written by Justices Bastarache and Lebel JJ. (writing also for Fish, Abella, and McLachlin JJ.), begins by setting out its grandiose intention to re-examine judicial review principles in Canadian administrative law with the view to making them more workable and coherent. In an initial glance, one is immediately struck by how such an immense and significant task is built upon a seemingly insignificant set of facts. The appellant, a former non-unionized provincial employee who was dismissed with pay in lieu of notice, sought to uphold a grievance arbitrator’s ruling that his employment be reinstated. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court judgment follows that of both the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal. One cannot also help but notice that in purporting to reformulate the pragmatic and functional approach to substantive judicial review, Dunsmuir consists of three concurring but inconsistent sets of reasons. Indeed, it is difficult to envision Dunsmuir as a defining moment in Canadian administrative law along the lines of CUPE Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Board, [1979] 2 SCR 227, Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Police Commissioners, [1979] 1 SCR 311, Knight v. Indian Head School Division, [1990] 1 SCR 653, Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 SCR 982, or Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR 817. This is because Dunsmuir falls well short of its lofty ambitions. Binnie J.’s reasons aside, Dunsmuir is little more than formal acknowledgement of recent shifts in, and deficiencies with, the Supreme Court’s attitude towards substantive judicial review.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302

PDF Version: Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin: Federal Court Finds Error in Kearl Oil Sands Project Environmental Assessment

In late 2006, media attention in Alberta was directed to the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, home to the Alberta oil sands and boom town Fort McMurray as the modern rendition of the 1800s frontier gold rush. Apparently, the Municipality was about to cook the goose that had laid the golden egg.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Weir v. Canada (Registrar of Firearms), 2008 ABPC 18, Woodcock v. Canada (Registrar of Firearms), 2008 ABPC 19

PDF Version: The Shotgun Approach to Judicial Review

These two almost identical judgments of Provincial Court Judge Bruce R. Fraser confirmed refusals by the Registrar to issue registration certificates for prohibited weapons. They were both references made pursuant to section 74 of the Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39. The standard of the review to be conducted by a provincial court judge in such a reference has been a controversial matter. Various methods for selecting the appropriate standard of review in a section 74 reference have been proposed and implemented by Alberta courts. The jurisprudence thus far suggests this shotgun approach is missing the mark when it comes to standard of review.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Johnston v. Alberta (Vital Statistics), 2008 ABCA 2, Johnston v. Alberta (Director of Vital Statistics, 2007 ABCA 394, Johnston v. Alberta (Director of Vital Statistics), 2007 ABQB 597

PDF Version: Leave to Intervene Denied to Métis Nation in Case Involving Disinterment of RCMP

The case concerning Constable Lionide (Leo) Johnston’s place of burial has been before the Alberta courts a number of times, and has received a fair degree of media attention. Constable Johnston was one of four RCMP officers killed in the line of duty on March 3, 2005 near Mayerthorpe, Alberta.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Siksika First Nation v. Alberta (Director Southern Region Environment) 2007 ABCA 402

PDF Version: Environmental Permitting and the Scope of the Duty to Consult

The Town of Strathmore faced a sewage problem. It proposed to deal with that problem by constructing a pipeline and disposing of some of its waste water into the Bow above the Siksika Reserve. Not surprisingly the Siksika took a dim view of this and when the Director approved the town’s application under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-12, the Siksika appealed that decision to Alberta’s Environmental Appeal Board (the EAB). The Siksika also sought judicial review arguing amongst other things that the government of Alberta was in breach of its constitutional duty to consult the Nation. Justice Peter McInytre (oral reasons for judgement, available on the EAB’s website ) rejected the Siksika’s JR application on the grounds that the Siksika’s application was premature and therefore moot (because they might succeed before the EAB). In addition Justice McIntyre reasoned that the EAB procedure (and subsequent consideration of the EAB decision by the Minister) might cure any defect (want of consultation) there might have been in the Director’s procedure. There is no suggestion that Justice McIntyre rejected the application on the basis that the Siksika had not exhausted their local remedies.

(more…)