ABLawg

The CER Approves the Negotiated Settlement for TMX’s Tolls and Tariffs: One More Taxpayer Subsidy for Oilsands Producers

On October 20, 2026

In Administrative Law, Energy, Natural Resources

Decision Commented On: Canadian Energy Regulator, Approval of Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Negotiated Settlement, September 28, 2026

PDF Version: The CER Approves the Negotiated Settlement for TMX’s Tolls and Tariffs: One More Taxpayer Subsidy for Oilsands Producers

On September 28, 2026 the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) approved a negotiated settlement between Trans Mountain and shippers (largely oilsands producers) on the Trans Mountain Expansion project (TMX). While one shipper took no position on the application, all other shippers filed letters in support of the application. One intervenor, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation (TWN) (not a shipper), objected to the settlement.

Decrypting Bill C-22, Part 2: Keeping Tabs: C-22 and the Year (Now Half-Year) of Metadata Retention

By Alexandra Lyn

On October 19, 2026

In Law Reform, National Security, Privacy

By: Alexandra Lyn, Joel Reardon, and Michael Nesbitt

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, 1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2026 (as passed by the House of Commons 18 June 2026)

PDF Version: Decrypting Bill C-22, Part 2: Keeping Tabs: C-22 and the Year (Now Half-Year) of Metadata Retention

This is the second post in our four-part series that translates the ongoing debate over Bill C-22 for non-technical and non-legal readers. The first post introduced Bill C-22 and provided background information to help understand the justifications and criticisms of the Bill, including a brief primer on the legal concept of “lawful access” and search and seizure law under section 8 of the Charter, which readers may wish to review as it forms a backdrop to this blog post. Part I can be found here. In that post, we promised three subsequent blog posts on three core criticisms of Bill C-22. This installment tackles one of the most far-reaching of those three core criticisms of Bill C-22: the Bill’s mandatory metadata retention provisions.

Grounds for (In)Equality: The Supreme Court of Canada Grapples with Intersectionality in Kanyinda

By Jennifer Koshan

On October 16, 2026

In Charter, Equality

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Commented on: Quebec (Attorney General) v Kanyinda, 2026 SCC 7 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Grounds for (In)Equality: The Supreme Court of Canada Grapples with Intersectionality in Kanyinda

2026 Referendum: UCP Grievance Politics and A Binding Vote Against Separation

By Shaun Fluker

On October 13, 2026

In Alberta Independence, Constitutional, Election/Voting

By: Shaun Fluker

Matter Commented On: Alberta’s 2026 Provincial Referendum

PDF Version: 2026 Referendum: UCP Grievance Politics and A Binding Vote Against Separation

Elections Alberta sets out the ten questions on the 2026 referendum here. The UCP government’s description of the referendum questions is here, and this description labels the questions into three groups: (1) four ‘constitutional questions’; (2) five ‘immigration questions’; and (3) one ‘separation question’. These questions have been the subject of an immense amount of media commentary. CBC News provides a brief overview of each question here and has a dedicated webpage for all its referendum coverage here. Much of the commentary seeks to understand the policy implications of the referendum vote (see e.g., Explaining about all 10 questions on the referendum). One implication is certain: a majority of votes for Option 1 (Alberta should remain a province of Canada) on the ‘separation question’ is binding on this UCP government (and not just while Danielle Smith remains premier, as she suggested in an interview with CBC News here), and should legally preclude any further scratching of the separation itch within the UCP party and the government caucus until after the next general election.

Experimental Deregulation: Next Steps for the Pacific Link Pipeline as the First Official Building Canada Act Project of National Interest

By David V Wright

On October 5, 2026

In Aboriginal, Energy, Environmental, Indigenous, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: David V. Wright

Matters Commented On: Order in Council PC 2026-0925 (2026) and Explanatory Note for Pacific Link Pipeline Project; Building Canada Act, SC 2025, c 2, s 4

PDF Version: Experimental Deregulation: Next Steps for the Pacific Link Pipeline as the First Official Building Canada Act Project of National Interest

On October 1^st, more than one year after the new Building Canada Act (BCA) SC 2025, c 2, s 4 came into force, the first Project of National Interest (PONI) was added to Schedule 1. That means the proposed West Coast Oil Pipeline, now being called “Pacific Link”, will proceed through the fast-tracking review and approvals process established under the BCA. This post draws on a previous post and works through a series of questions to explain the legal process ahead for Pacific Link Pipeline (PLP). It concludes with short commentary on the rationale provided by the government, the broader context, and hurdles ahead.