ABLawg

The 2026 Mine Financial Security Program Update: More Volatility in Liability Estimates and an Asset-to-Liability Problem with the Fort Hills Mine

On October 23, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Documents Commented On: Annual Mine Financial Security Program Submissions 2026 Submissions for 2025 Reporting Year; Mine Financial Security Program – Security and Liability, September 29, 2026.

PDF Version: The 2026 Mine Financial Security Program Update: More Volatility in Liability Estimates and an Asset-to-Liability Problem with the Fort Hills Mine

This is the annual update following the posting of the submissions for the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP) to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) website. See last year’s post here. The MFSP is Alberta’s troubled system for managing the financial security for the closure (decommissioning, remediation and reclamation) of oilsands and coal mines when they stop operating. For a detailed assessment of the weaknesses in the MFSP, see this 2023 paper coauthored with Martin Olszynski and Andrew Leach, “Not Fit for Purpose: Oil Sands Mines and Alberta’s Mine Financial Security Program”. In February 2025, the Alberta government made minor changes that did not address the fundamental problems with the MFSP – see our post here.

The CER Approves the Negotiated Settlement for TMX’s Tolls and Tariffs: One More Taxpayer Subsidy for Oilsands Producers

By Nigel Bankes

On October 20, 2026

In Administrative Law, Energy, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision Commented On: Canadian Energy Regulator, Approval of Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Negotiated Settlement, September 28, 2026

PDF Version: The CER Approves the Negotiated Settlement for TMX’s Tolls and Tariffs: One More Taxpayer Subsidy for Oilsands Producers

On September 28, 2026 the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) approved a negotiated settlement between Trans Mountain and shippers (largely oilsands producers) on the Trans Mountain Expansion project (TMX). While one shipper took no position on the application, all other shippers filed letters in support of the application. One intervenor, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation (TWN) (not a shipper), objected to the settlement.

Decrypting Bill C-22, Part 2: Keeping Tabs: C-22 and the Year (Now Half-Year) of Metadata Retention

By Alexandra Lyn

On October 19, 2026

In Law Reform, National Security, Privacy

By: Alexandra Lyn, Joel Reardon, and Michael Nesbitt

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, 1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2026 (as passed by the House of Commons 18 June 2026)

PDF Version: Decrypting Bill C-22, Part 2: Keeping Tabs: C-22 and the Year (Now Half-Year) of Metadata Retention

This is the second post in our four-part series that translates the ongoing debate over Bill C-22 for non-technical and non-legal readers. The first post introduced Bill C-22 and provided background information to help understand the justifications and criticisms of the Bill, including a brief primer on the legal concept of “lawful access” and search and seizure law under section 8 of the Charter, which readers may wish to review as it forms a backdrop to this blog post. Part I can be found here. In that post, we promised three subsequent blog posts on three core criticisms of Bill C-22. This installment tackles one of the most far-reaching of those three core criticisms of Bill C-22: the Bill’s mandatory metadata retention provisions.

Grounds for (In)Equality: The Supreme Court of Canada Grapples with Intersectionality in Kanyinda

By Jennifer Koshan

On October 16, 2026

In Charter, Equality

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Commented on: Quebec (Attorney General) v Kanyinda, 2026 SCC 7 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Grounds for (In)Equality: The Supreme Court of Canada Grapples with Intersectionality in Kanyinda

2026 Referendum: UCP Grievance Politics and A Binding Vote Against Separation

By Shaun Fluker

On October 13, 2026

In Alberta Independence, Constitutional, Election/Voting

By: Shaun Fluker

Matter Commented On: Alberta’s 2026 Provincial Referendum

PDF Version: 2026 Referendum: UCP Grievance Politics and A Binding Vote Against Separation

Elections Alberta sets out the ten questions on the 2026 referendum here. The UCP government’s description of the referendum questions is here, and this description labels the questions into three groups: (1) four ‘constitutional questions’; (2) five ‘immigration questions’; and (3) one ‘separation question’. These questions have been the subject of an immense amount of media commentary. CBC News provides a brief overview of each question here and has a dedicated webpage for all its referendum coverage here. Much of the commentary seeks to understand the policy implications of the referendum vote (see e.g., Explaining about all 10 questions on the referendum). One implication is certain: a majority of votes for Option 1 (Alberta should remain a province of Canada) on the ‘separation question’ is binding on this UCP government (and not just while Danielle Smith remains premier, as she suggested in an interview with CBC News here), and should legally preclude any further scratching of the separation itch within the UCP party and the government caucus until after the next general election.