ABLawg

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

On April 14, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, International Investment

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.

Unpaid Oil and Gas Municipal Property Taxes: Another Problem for the AER’s Closure and Liability Management System

By Drew Yewchuk

On April 9, 2026

In Administrative Law, Municipal Law, Oil & Gas, Tax

By: Drew Yewchuk

Document Commented On: Property Tax Accountability Strategy (PTAS) Final Report and Recommendations, March 2026

PDF Version: Unpaid Oil and Gas Municipal Property Taxes: Another Problem for the AER’s Closure and Liability Management System

On March 16, 2026, the government of Alberta announced a new report on the ongoing problem of unpaid municipal property taxes by a segment of the Alberta oil and gas industry. The announcement says the report is “the result of the Property Tax Accountability Strategy (PTAS) working group, which comprised Alberta’s government, the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA), and rural municipal administrators, with support from representatives of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and the oil and gas industry as observers.” The PTAS Report includes a description of the problem, along with 17 recommendations to address the problem. This post reviews some highlights of the PTAS Report’s description of the problem and comments on the likely effectiveness of the PTAS Report’s recommendations.

Distress for Rent in Alberta (Residential Tenancies)

By Joe Sellman

On March 27, 2026

In Law Reform, Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service

By: Joe Sellman

Report Commented On: Residential Tenancies: Distress for Rent, Final Report 122

PDF Version: Distress for Rent in Alberta (Residential Tenancies)

How easy is it for a landlord to have a tenant’s personal property seized and sold without any oversight (either judicial or via the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service)?

Very! (depending on the circumstances).

A Hypothetical Scenario:

The surprise: You (the tenant) answer the door (to the unit you rent) and a bailiff presents you with some paperwork and tells you they are here to levy “distress for rent”, because you have not paid your rent. They continue to explain they are going to look around your apartment and take your personal property to satisfy the rent you owe to the landlord as well as their costs.

Your response: While you’ve never heard of distress for rent, and wonder if this is even legal, the bailiff seems legitimate. You try and offer to pay the rent now, the bailiff calls the civil enforcement agency and tells you they will only accept cash, certified cheque, bank draft, or money order. Unfortunately, none of those options are available to you right now.

You ask, “shouldn’t the landlord have to give me an opportunity to pay the rent before sending a bailiff? Shouldn’t there be advance notice?” The response is devastating, as these aren’t required for distress for rent.

The outcome: The bailiff leaves with your most valuable personal property, including electronics, jewelry, your rare stamp collection, and a few designer clothes you have. All you are left with is some paperwork saying you have 15 days to object.

It all happened so quickly, and then you remember you have a friend who is a lawyer. You give them a call, the first thing your friend says is “just refuse the bailiff entry”. You didn’t even know that was an option.

Back to School Act Survives Injunction Application

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 26, 2026

In Charter, Constitutional, Education, Equality, Injunctions, Labour/Employment, Rule of Law

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (AG), 2026 ABKB 190

PDF Version: Back to School Act Survives Injunction Application

On March 13, 2026, Justice Douglas R. Mah denied the application of the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) for an interlocutory injunction to suspend operation of the Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B-05 (BSA). Background on this legislation and the Alberta government’s use of the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to override the teachers’ rights to collectively bargain and strike appears in earlier ABlawg posts here and here. This post will discuss Justice Mah’s reasons, including his commentary on the role of judges in a constitutional democracy. This commentary is a sign of the times in Alberta, with the government posing threats to the rule of law and judges feeling compelled to speak out and defend their role. And it is not just the Alberta government seeking to exert more control over the judiciary. On March 24, Alberta was joined by the governments of Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec in calling for a greater say for the provinces in the selection of federally appointed judges. The provinces’ letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney came during a week when the Supreme Court of Canada is hearing what many consider to be the most important constitutional case since the Charter came into effect in 1982, English Montreal School Board, et al v Attorney General of Quebec, et al, 2025 CanLII 2818 (SCC) (EMSB). EMSB involves foundational issues about the powers of judges after a government has invoked the Charter’s notwithstanding clause, section 33. As I will discuss, the EMSB case played a key role in Justice Mah’s decision.