ABLawg

Case Commented On: GCMR Contracting Inc v MNP Ltd, 2026 FC 468 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Does the Federal Court have Jurisdiction to Review a Decision of an Insolvency Trustee?

In GCMR Contracting Inc v MNP Ltd, 2026 FC 468 (CanLII), the Federal Court considered whether it has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision by an insolvency trustee to approve or disallow a creditor’s claims. In a short decision, the judge determined that the Federal Court did not have such jurisdiction.

In this case, the Applicant, GCMR Contracting Inc, sought judicial review at the Federal Court of a decision of the Insolvency Trustee, MNP Ltd. The trustee had disallowed the Applicant’s creditor’s claim pursuant to section 135(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA).

Limitations Laws and Gender-Based Violence Torts

By Jennifer Koshan

On April 27, 2026

In Gender Based Violence, Limitations, Torts

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: LeClair v MacDonald, 2026 NSCA 18 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Limitations Laws and Gender-Based Violence Torts

The Supreme Court of Canada is currently considering whether to accept a new tort of family violence. Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia was argued in February 2025 and the Court’s decision is anxiously awaited by family law and torts lawyers and professors, anti-violence advocates, and survivors of family violence. As Deanne Sowter and I wrote in an ABlawg post in September 2023, this new tort was initially recognized by the Ontario Superior Court and then rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal (see Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303 (CanLII); 2023 ONCA 476 (CanLII)). The Court of Appeal’s rationale was that the existing torts of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of mental distress (IIMD) covered the conduct at issue in Ahluwalia, so it was unnecessary to recognize a new tort. Courts in Alberta have followed the ONCA decision and denied claims for the tort of family violence where other torts were available (see e.g. Colenutt v Colenutt, 2023 ABKB 562 (CanLII)).

Bill 30, Expedited Project Approvals: Proponents Should Look Before They Leap

By Nigel Bankes

On April 24, 2026

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes and Drew Yewchuk

Matters Commented On: (1) Bill 30: Expedited 120 Day Approvals Act, first reading, April 14, 2026, (2) Press Release, Faster Approvals for Major Projects, April 14, 2026, (3) Bill-30, Streamlining project approvals, the press conference featuring Minister Jean, April 14, 2026.

PDF Version: Bill 30, Expedited Project Approvals: Proponents Should Look Before They Leap

This post examines Alberta’s Bill 30, a bill that proposes to offer a project proponent the option to seek expedited project approval. The post begins with an account of the reasons offered by the United Conservative Party (UCP) for the Bill, followed by an account of the expedited approval scheme that the bill proposes. It then offers a critique of some different aspects of Bill 30 before suggesting that a proponent should think carefully before accepting the government’s offer of an expedited process – it may be a poisoned chalice.

The Next Shoe Drops. The Northback (Grassy Mountain) Interests File an International Investment Law Claim Against Canada

By Nigel Bankes

On April 14, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, International Investment

By: Nigel Bankes and Kyla Tienhaara

Matter Commented On: Request for Arbitration, Riversdale Resources Pty Ltd and Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Canada, December 16, 2024, and Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim, September 17, 2024

PDF Version: The Next Shoe Drops. The Northback (Grassy Mountain) Interests File an International Investment Law Claim Against Canada

In December 2024, the Australian parent companies of Northback Holdings (Northback) filed a Request for Arbitration (RFA) with Canada under the terms of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP or Agreement) alleging breach of Canada’s investment obligations under that Agreement. The claim follows the rejection of the Grassy Mountain coal project by a joint federal–provincial review panel and subsequent domestic litigation. The case is part of a broader trend of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims challenging environmental decision-making in resource projects.

The Minority Report on Electoral Districts: Will the Law Protect Alberta from UCP Gerrymandering?

By Shaun Fluker

On April 13, 2026

In Charter, Constitutional, Election/Voting

By: Shaun Fluker

Report Commented On: Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission Final Report (March 2026)

PDF Version: The Minority Report on Electoral Districts: Will the Law Protect Alberta from UCP Gerrymandering?

In a representative democracy, an elected representative is chosen by voters in their assigned electoral district. It goes without saying that the integrity of the process used to determine electoral districts is essential to a functional representative democracy. Any whiff of partisan influence on the process will poison the legitimacy of electoral outcomes, raising the spectre that electoral districts were drawn to ensure a particular result on voting day. This is known as “gerrymandering”. Political commentators (see here and here and here) have described the minority report issued by the two UCP-appointed members of the 2025-2026 Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission as classic gerrymandering. We are not quite there yet because it remains to be seen whether the minority report will be implemented by the UCP government. This post describes the content of the Electoral Boundaries Commission report submitted to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on March 23, 2026 (the “Report”) and explores what legal guardrails exist to prevent gerrymandering from infecting Alberta’s democracy.