Monthly Archives: April 2009

The Tromsø Meeting of the Parties to the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears: A Comment on Three Aspects of the Meeting Report

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Tromsø Meeting of the Parties to the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears: A Comment on Three Aspects of the Meeting Report

Document Commented On: Meeting of the parties to the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, Tromsø, Norway, 17 – 19 March 2009 Outcome of Meeting

A few weeks ago (March 17 – 19, 2009) the parties to the 1973 Polar Bear Agreement met in Tromsø to consider the further implementation of the Agreement. This is a significant breakthrough. Apart from a meeting of the parties back in 1981 when the Parties decided to continue the Agreement in force as contemplated by Article X(6) of the Agreement and in informal meeting of the range states in 2007, the parties have never considered the further implementation of this Agreement.

Continue reading →

New Legislation on Film and Video Classification Garners Little Attention

Legislation Considered: Film and Video Classification Act, S.A. 2008 c. F-11.5

PDF Version: New Legislation on Film and Video Classification Garners Little Attention

Without much attention or fanfare, the Film and Video Classification Act (“FVCA“), S.A. 2008 c. F-11.5 received royal assent on December 2, 2008. It is awaiting proclamation. It is perhaps ironic that the media did not pay much attention to legislation that will certainly affect some of them. It is clear that the legislation that the FVCA will replace is sorely out of date and needs to be brought into the 21st century (e.g., the Amusements Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.A-40, referred to “moving picture machines” and “travelling picture shows”). However, some of the amendments seem to create potential difficulties in implementation. Three aspects of the new legislation merit discussion.

Continue reading →

Extraordinary Times Justify Extraordinary Remedies: Interim Measures under the AIPN Standard Form Operating Agreement

Cases Considered: BG International Limited v. Canadian Superior Energy Inc., 2009 ABCA 127; BG International Limited v. Canadian Superior Energy Inc., 2009 ABCA 73 (Justice Carole Conrad, chambers)

PDF Version: Extraordinary times justify extraordinary remedies: interim measures under the AIPN standard form operating agreement

This is the first Alberta and indeed Canadian decision to consider the standard form operating agreement of the Association of International Petroleum Negotiators (AIPN) (2002). The Court of Appeal has upheld the order of Justice Barbara Romaine [unreported, February 11, 2009] sitting in chambers to issue an interim receivership order with respect to Canadian Superior Energy Inc’s (CSEI) interest in an exploration property in the offshore area of Trinidad and Tobago. In the course of doing so the order effected a change of operatorship and provided significant interim relief to BG International (BGI) in order to preserve the jointly owned property and to ensure continued drilling and testing operations.

Continue reading →

Freedom of Expression, Universities and Anti-Choice Protests

PDF version: Freedom of Expression, Universities and Anti-Choice Protests

Anti-abortion protestors were back in force at the University of Calgary the last week of March following news that on March 16, they pleaded not guilty to trespassing charges laid against them in relation to a similar incident in November, 2008. One might reasonably think that the freedom to express anti-choice views deserves protection on a university campus, a center of academic debate on a range of controversial subjects. Or one might reasonably think that the University of Calgary was justified in advising the Campus Pro-Life group that they could mount their protest, provided they turned their signs – depicting graphic images of the Rwandan genocide, the Holocaust, the Ku Klux Klan and aborted fetuses – inward. But the University is making a different argument, namely that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to universities. I think that view is itself subject to debate.

Continue reading →

The protection of potable ground water through a purposive or objective approach to regulation

Case Considered: ERCB Decision 2009-029, CCS Corporation, Section 40 Review and Variance of Application No. 1515213, Class 1b Waste Disposal Scheme, Well 00/09-01-048-14W5M, Brazeau River, March 24, 2009

PDF version: The protection of potable ground water through a purposive or objective approach to regulation

There are at least five reasons to read and blog on this decision. First, it is very rare for the ERCB (“the Board”) to issue a reasoned decision on an application relating to a disposal well. Others include ERCB D 90-17 and D2002-055. The Board deals with most such decisions administratively. Typically there will be no reasoned decision and the general public will not have a clue that the Board has just approved a proposal to inject oilfield waste or acid gas into a geological formation unless they happen to live within a fairly circumscribed radius of the well. Other well operators are far more likely to receive notification than the general public. Second, the decision deals with a topic of crucial societal importance, the protection of potable groundwater and how to ensure that. Third, the decision contains a very interesting discussion of two different approaches to regulation. One approach (which we will term the prescriptive approach) seeks to set certain prescriptive standards that any project must meet in order to be approved. This approach works on the basis that if the proponent complies with that standard, the desired regulatory objective (e.g. protection of groundwater) will be achieved. The other approach (which we will term the purposive or objective approach) requires the applicant to meet the desired regulatory objective but affords the applicant greater discretion as to how it achieves that objective. Fourth, the decision offers some interesting comments on the interrelationship and respective responsibilities of the ERCB and Alberta Environment. And fifth it is important to look at this decision for what it might tell us about the Board’s approach to the regulation of disposal operations associated with carbon capture and storage.

Continue reading →