Year: 2025 Page 8 of 16

Charter Sections 15 and 25: The Majority Judgment in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and its Application in the Federal Court

On August 29, 2025

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Equality, Indigenous

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton, Robert Hamilton, and Jennifer Koshan

Cases Commented On: Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII); Houle v Swan River First Nation, 2025 FC 267 (CanLII); Donald-Potskin v Sawridge First Nation, 2025 FC 648 (CanLII); Cunningham v Sucker Creek First Nation 150A, 2025 FC 1174 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Charter Sections 15 and 25: The Majority Judgment in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and its Application in the Federal Court

This is the third in a series of four ABlawg posts on the Supreme Court of Canada’s complex decision in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII). The first post examined the extent to which various factions of the Court referenced the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the second post analyzed their handling of whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied in this context. In this post, we explore another issue on which there was serious disagreement amongst members of the Court. Having found that the Charter applied to the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation’s (VGFN) residency requirement for Council elections, the majority (Justices Nicolas Kasirer and Mahmud Jamal, with Chief Justice Richard Wagner and Justice Suzanne Côté concurring) and dissenting justices (Justices Sheilah Martin and Michelle O’Bonsawin) ruled on how to approach the interplay between sections 15(1) and 25 of the Charter. We look at the majority judgment and three recent decisions applying the majority’s approach to section 25, also in cases involving First Nations elections: Houle v Swan River First Nation, 2025 FC 267 (CanLII) (Houle), Donald-Potskin v Sawridge First Nation, 2025 FC 648 (CanLII)) (Donald-Potskin), and Cunningham v Sucker Creek First Nation 150A, 2025 FC 1174 (CanLII). The fourth post in this series will focus on the dissenting judgment of Martin and O’Bonsawin JJ on the interplay between sections 15(1) and 25.

Luciano Lliuya vs. RWE AG: Corporate Climate Liability Through the Lens of the Polluter Pays Principle

By Flavia Vieira de Castro

On August 19, 2025

In Environmental

By: Flavia Vieira de Castro

Case Commented On: Luciano Lliuya v RWE AG (2025) Hamm Higher Regional Court, 5 U 15/17 OLG Hamm / Case No. 2 O 285/15 Essen Regional Court (see here for an unofficial translation of the decision)

PDF Version: Luciano Lliuya vs. RWE AG: Corporate Climate Liability Through the Lens of the Polluter Pays Principle

This post briefly examines the recent and long-awaited decision rendered by the German Higher Regional Court of Hamm in the Lliuya case. This judicial decision is the first to recognize the potential liability of a large greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter from the energy sector for actual climate-related risks. The decision could have significant practical implications for other large GHG emitters, which have contributed to the climate crisis over the last decades while profiting from their polluting activities. The Lliuya decision signals that legal accountability of carbon majors for the climate-related damage is increasingly likely, and large GHG emitters – not only in Germany but also here in Canada and elsewhere – should consider factoring the risk of legal liability into their business models in the future.

The Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2024/2025: The Sequoia Settlement Hits the Orphan Inventory

By Drew Yewchuk

On August 18, 2025

In Energy, Environmental, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Matter Commented On: Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2024/2025

PDF Version: The Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2024/2025: The Sequoia Settlement Hits the Orphan Inventory

On July 15, 2025 the Orphan Well Association (OWA) released their Annual Report for 2024/2025. OWA annual reports provide insight into Alberta’s orphan oil and gas site problem and the pace at which the problem is being addressed (see the ABlawgs on past OWA annual reports: 2022/2023 and 2023/2024). The OWA annual report is separate from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER)’s annual liability management performance reports, which ABlawg covered for 2022 and 2023. This blog summarizes the current state and foreseeable future of Alberta’s current orphan oil and gas site problem.

Canada’s Internationally Wrongful Climate Acts

By Adebayo Majekolagbe

On August 15, 2025

In Climate Change, International Law

By: Adebayo Majekolagbe

Decision Commented On: Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (2025)

PDF Version: Canada’s Internationally Wrongful Climate Acts

Over the past decade, litigants—mainly young people—have petitioned domestic courts worldwide to assess if governments are doing enough to combat climate change. Courts in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America mostly responded positively, issuing directives for more ambitious climate action. Although similar cases have been brought before Canadian courts, no case has succeeded on its merits in compelling federal or provincial governments to raise the level of their climate commitments. This situation might soon change, especially with the recent landmark advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

When Is An Interest In Land A Legal (As Opposed To An Equitable) Interest?

By Nigel Bankes

On August 1, 2025

In Natural Resources, Property

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: PrairieSky Roy2alty Ltd v Yangarra Resources Ltd, 2025 ABCA 240 (CanLII)

PDF Version: When Is An Interest In Land A Legal (As Opposed To An Equitable) Interest?

The principal issue in this case by the time the matter reached the Court of Appeal was the question of whether a gross overriding royalty (GORR) carved out of an Alberta Crown petroleum and natural gas (png) lease was a legal or an equitable interest in land. Justice Michel Bourque at trial (2023 ABQB 11) concluded that the GORR in question was an interest in land (applying Bank of Montreal v Dynex Petroleum Ltd, 2002 SCC 7 aff’g 1999 ABCA 363). Furthermore, Justic Bourque went on to conclude that the GORR was a legal interest in land. The GORR was therefore binding on Yangarra as the successor in interest to the Crown png lease, even though Yangarra had no notice of PrairieSky’s GORR. As a result, Justice Bourque did not need to consider Yangarra’s alternative argument to the effect that if the GORR were only an equitable interest in land Yangarra was entitled to be treated as equity’s darling (i.e. the bona fide purchaser of the legal estate without notice (actual or constructive) of the prior outstanding equitable interest (i.e. the GORR)). The Crown png lease originally granted in 1979 was held by a number of parties in succession over the years until 2011, when Home Quarter Resources (HQR) granted the GORR to Range Royalty (the HQ GORR or the 2011 GORR). The lessee’s interest subsequently became vested in Yangarra, while Range Royalty’s interest became vested in PrairieSky. I commented extensively on the trial judgment here and I refer the reader to that comment for a more detailed summary of the facts.