ABLawg

Case/Decision/Legislation/Bill Commented On: Protecting Victims of Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Act, SA 2017, c P-26.9

PDF Version: Intimate Image Abuse in the Age of Deepfakes: Reforming Alberta’s Civil Legislation: Part 2

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection reported that non-consensual distribution of intimate images (NCDII) involving Canadian youth increased by approximately 21% between 2024 and 2025, from 436 to 527. Despite the growing prevalence of intimate image abuse, Alberta does not provide a dedicated process for obtaining an expedited intimate image protection order or expressly authorize orders requiring online platforms to remove intimate images. Victims seeking protective relief must instead navigate ordinary civil proceedings or pursue voluntary removal through online platforms.

Intimate Image Abuse in the Age of Deepfakes: Reforming Alberta’s Civil Legislation: Part 1

By Emma Marck

On August 25, 2026

In Internet Law, Law Reform, Privacy

By: Emma Marck

Legislation Commented On: Protecting Victims of Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Act, SA 2017, c P-26.9

PDF Version: Intimate Image Abuse in the Age of Deepfakes: Reforming Alberta’s Civil Legislation: Part 1

One in ten American teenagers personally knows someone who has had deepfake non-consensual intimate images (DNCII) of them created, and 6% reported having been victimized by DNCII (Thorn, Deepfake Nudes & Young People: Navigating a New Frontier in Technology-Facilitated Nonconsensual Sexual Abuse and Exploitation (Thorn: 2025) at 14). Recent incidents in Alberta demonstrate why intimate image legislation must address DNCII and its online distribution. In December 2025, a Calgary teen was charged in relation to DNCII of students from several schools. Six months later, two Edmonton boys were charged after creating and sharing DNCII of classmates. Reported consequences include job loss, school expulsion, post-traumatic stress disorder, and, in some cases, death by suicide (Mary Anne Franks, “‘Revenge Porn’ Reform: A View from the Front Lines” (2017) 69:5 Florida L Rev 1251 at 1259, 1263).

Just Keep Watching: Insights From Democracy Watch v Canada (AG), 2026 SCC 28

By Sue Lu

On August 24, 2026

In Administrative Law, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Sue Lu

Matter Commented On: Democracy Watch v Canada (AG), 2026 SCC 28 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Just Keep Watching: Insights From Democracy Watch v Canada (AG), 2026 SCC 28

On July 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its highly anticipated decision for Democracy Watch v Canada (AG), 2026 SCC 28 (CanLII) (Democracy Watch). For many years prior to this decision, Canadian legislatures incorporated privative clauses into their various laws to restrict the ability of courts to review decisions made by administrative bodies. Democracy Watch has now clarified that privative clauses that purport to oust what the Supreme Court calls “legality review” are unconstitutional; all aspects of an administrative decision are potentially subject to judicial review. This ruling ends the uncertainty that surrounded privative clauses and the ability for decisions made by administrative bodies to be reviewed, and may be the most important development in administrative law since Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII) (Vavilov).

What Can We Learn From A Failed Synapse Or Two?

By Nigel Bankes

On August 21, 2026

In Energy, Utility Regulation

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: AUC Decision 30732-D01-2026, Synapse Real Estate Corp., Synapse Data Center Power Plant Project, August 17, 2026

PDF Version: What Can We Learn From A Failed Synapse Or Two?

On August 17, 2026, a panel of commissioners of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) rejected, in trenchant terms, an application from Synapse Real Estate Corp (Synapse) to construct and operate a 1,400?megawatt (MW) combined-cycle natural gas-fired power plant together with massive amounts of backup diesel generation (1,800 MW) (together, the power facilities). The power facilities were to be located within the town of Olds and co-located with a large-scale data centre. The power plant was intended to provide electricity exclusively to the data centre and not be connected to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (the grid). While the generation and data centre were clearly intended to be functionally integrated, the AUC has no jurisdiction over data centres. The AUC’s jurisdiction is confined to new power facilities under the terms of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, RSA 2000, c H-16 (HEEA), specifically ss 11 and 19, as supplemented by s 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, SA 2007, c A-37.2 (AUCA). Section 17 of the AUCA is crucial insofar as it confirmed that a principal criterion for approval is that the project be in the public interest.

Federal Court Finds Environment for Inmates at Edmonton Institution for Women not Safe and Healthful Due to Extreme Indoor Temperatures

By Amy Matychuk

On August 11, 2026

In Human Rights, Prison Law

By: Amy Matychuk

Case Commented On: Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies v Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 958 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Federal Court Finds Environment for Inmates at Edmonton Institution for Women not Safe and Healthful Due to Extreme Indoor Temperatures

On July 16, 2026, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) must keep records of temperatures in inmate-occupied areas at the Secure (Maximum) Unit of the Edmonton Institution for Women (EIFW) and must seek authorization to install air conditioning in those same areas. The decision was released in the middle of a hot and smoky summer, during which CSC has come under fire for extremely hot living conditions for federal prison inmates. While excessive hot and cold temperatures are certainly not a new issue for CSC facilities, the Federal Court’s specific order that EIFW must track temperatures in inmate living spaces in the EIFW Secure Unit represents an important development for prison justice advocates, who may now have access to information corroborating their clients’ longstanding claims about unliveable temperatures in federal prisons. Further, CSC can no longer rely on a blanket prohibition against installing air conditioning in inmate living areas, a small step toward more livable conditions for inmates.