University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Joint Responsibility Under Alberta’s Mines and Minerals Act

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions commented on: Terra Energy Corp (Re), 2023 ABKB 236 (CanLII); Alberta (Energy and Minerals) v Spartan Delta Corp, 2026 ABCA 214 (CanLII); Alberta (Energy and Minerals) v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2026 ABCA 213 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Joint Responsibility Under Alberta’s Mines and Minerals Act

Alberta’s Mines and Minerals Act, RSA 2000, c M-17 (MMA) refers to the concept of joint responsibility in two places. Both references were added to the MMA in 2003, see SA 2003, c 18. This post reviews three cases that consider these provisions of the MMA: Terra Energy Corp (Re), 2023 ABKB 236 (CanLII) (Terra Energy), Alberta (Energy and Minerals) v Spartan Delta Corp, 2026 ABCA 214 (CanLII) (Spartan Delta), and Alberta (Energy and Minerals) v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2026 ABCA 213 (CanLII) (CNRL).

The State of Document Dumping in BC after Acciona

By: Thao Nguyen

Case Commented On: Acciona Wastewater Solutions LP v Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, 2025 BCSC 1256 (CanLII).

PDF Version: The State of Document Dumping in BC after Acciona

The discovery process (or discovery) in civil litigation requires parties to disclose, produce, and question relevant evidence or documents related to the litigation’s live issues. Discovery can be an expensive process; therefore, its scope is often narrowed by the proportionality principle. Under the proportionality principle, discovery should be commensurate, or proportionate, to the nature, scope, and complexity of the litigation, as well as the relevance and importance of the disclosed documents to ensure the discovery cost remain at a reasonable level (see The Sedona Conference, “The Sedona Canada Principles Addressing Electronic Discovery” (2022) 23 Sedona Conf J 161 at 165) (the Sedona Principles).

Decrypting Bill C-22, Part I: Why Canada Needs a Lawful Access Regime

By: Alexandra Lyn, Joel Reardon, and Michael Nesbitt

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access (1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2026)

PDF Version: Decrypting Bill C-22, Part I: Why Canada Needs a Lawful Access Regime

Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access (1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2026) is the federal government’s long-overdue and contentious attempt to address the intractable issue of lawful access. C-22 has cleared the House and is awaiting Senate study beginning on September 21, 2026, having been fast-tracked through third reading despite ongoing privacy, encryption, and overbreadth objections.  The Bill has two parts. Part 1, Timely Access to Data and Information, governs law enforcement access to personal information held by communication service providers (think Bell, Rogers, Telus) and other tech companies and services like Signal, Gmail, and WhatsApp, by amending the Criminal Code and several related statutes. Part 2 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act (SAAIA), which establishes a framework that requires electronic service providers to facilitate lawful access requests under the Criminal Code or the CSIS Act. Framed by the government as a response to criminal activity increasingly enabled by the digital environment, the Bill expands the state’s powers of search and seizure by conscripting private providers into its investigative apparatus — for example by requiring them, among other things, to retain user metadata that may not otherwise be preserved, and to develop technical capabilities that would otherwise not exist, so that law enforcement can access the data these providers hold. These expanded powers lie in tension with civil liberties and the privacy interests Canadians hold in their digital lives, interests protected by section 8 of the Charter. Bill C-22 asks Canadians to decide a question that has become increasingly pressing in a digital world: in the pursuit of public safety, how much of our privacy are we prepared to relinquish, to whom, and at what cost?

Canada’s Evolving Right to Shelter: Region of Waterloo v Named Respondents & Persons Unknown

By: Anna J. Lund and Sarah Buhler

Case Commented On: The Regional Municipality of Waterloo v Named Respondents and Persons Unknown, 2026 ONSC 2971 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Canada’s Evolving Right to Shelter: Region of Waterloo v Named Respondents & Persons Unknown

On May 21, 2026, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the Court) released its decision in The Regional Municipality of Waterloo v Named Respondents and Persons Unknown, 2026 ONSC 2971 (CanLII) (the Decision). The Decision considered the constitutionality of a regional government bylaw that sought to remove residents from an encampment. Housing rights advocates are lauding the Decision as a significant step forward in terms of courts recognizing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) as providing legal protections for the rights of unhoused Canadians, as well as its specific reliance on principles from international human rights law. This case comment provides a brief overview of the Decision, highlighting some of the key developments including:

$120,000 Penalty for the 2023 Kearl Tailings Overflow

By: Drew Yewchuk

Regulatory Decision Commented On: AER News Release 2026-06-11, Imperial pleads guilty to EPEA violation in Crown’s summary disposition on Kearl

PDF Version: $120,000 Penalty for the 2023 Kearl Tailings Overflow

On 29 May 2026, Imperial Oil Resources Limited (Imperial) entered a guilty plea to a charge of contravening a term or condition of its Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12 (EPEA) approval by releasing a substance from the Kearl oilsands mine in early 2023, and on 11 June 2026 the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) posted a news release publicizing that Imperial would pay a $120,000 penalty, $118,000 of which will go to a creative sentencing project.

Page 1 of 439

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén