Author: Drew Yewchuk Page 14 of 20

B.A. (UAlberta) J.D. (UCalgary) LLM (U.B.C.) Drew was a full-time staff lawyer with the University of Calgary's Public Interest Law Clinic from 2018-2022. He is now an PhD student at the Peter A. Allard School of Law. His research focuses on administrative secrecy, access to information law, species at risk, resource law, and environmental liabilities.

Responding to Concerns that Alberta Does Not Collect Enough Security for Environmental Remediation the AER Chooses to Collect Less Security

By Drew Yewchuk

On May 26, 2021

In Energy, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Responding to Concerns that Alberta Does Not Collect Enough Security for Environmental Remediation the AER Chooses to Collect Less Security

Document Commented On: Mine Financial Security Program Standard, dated May 6, 2021

On May 6, 2021, the Alberta Government announced they would review and modify the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). The MFSP is Alberta’s system for ensuring (purportedly at least) that companies pay for the reclamation of their mines, both oilsands and coal. At first glance, a review and modification sounds like a good idea, since the MFSP has been criticized as severely deficient since at least 2015 when an Auditor General report identified numerous significant problems concluding that in the event that “a mine operator cannot fulfill its reclamation obligations… the province may have to pay a potentially substantial cost for this work to be completed” (at 2). Since then, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has improved its administration of the program, but Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), the primary department responsible for the policy and design of the MFSP, has not addressed the overall structure of the program (see the Auditor General’s 2019 report). Under the MFSP, the province held $1.57 billion in security against estimated reclamation liabilities of $20.8 billion in December 2014 and $1.46 billion in security against $28.35 billion in estimated reclamation liabilities in June 2018. So reform is long overdue, especially if Alberta is considering approving new coal mines.

Coal Law and Policy Part Five: What is the Role of the Federal Government in Relation to Alberta Coal Mines?

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 24, 2021

In Energy, Environmental

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Coal Law and Policy Part Five: What is the Role of the Federal Government in Relation to Alberta Coal Mines?

Legislation Commented On: Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1; Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29; Coal Mining Effluent Regulations (forthcoming)

This is another installment in the continuing ABlawg series on the law and policy framework for coal projects in Alberta. This installment focuses on three statutes or regulations by which the federal government exercises authority over possible coal mining in Alberta’s eastern slopes: the Impact Assessment Act, the Species at Risk Act, and the forthcoming Coal Mining Effluent Regulations (a regulation under the Fisheries Act).

It should be noted these three enactments are not exhaustive of federal powers that apply to coal mining. The federal government may be involved in other ways, including through the general protection for fish habitat under the Fisheries Act, limitation of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial projects, constitutional obligations to Indigenous peoples, or water allocation disputes between provinces.

Coal Law and Policy, Part Four: The Regulation of Coal Exploration

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 9, 2021

In Energy, Environmental

By: Drew Yewchuk & Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Coal Law and Policy, Part Four: The Regulation of Coal Exploration

Matter Commented On: Information Letter 2021-07 “Coal Policy Reinstatement” (February 8, 2021) and attached Ministerial Order 054/2021

This is the fourth instalment in ABlawg’s series on coal law: for the background, see Part One: the Coal Policy and Its Legal Status, the special edition: What Are the Implications of Reinstating the 1976 Coal Development Policy?, Part Two: The Rules for Acquiring Coal Rights and the Royalty Regime, and Part Three: Was the Public Rationale for Rescinding the Coal Policy Ever Convincing?

This post covers the regulation of coal exploration programs. On February 8, 2021 the Minister of Energy ordered the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) not to “issue any new approvals for coal on Category 2 Lands” using the Minister’s authority to issue directions to the AER under section 67 of the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c R-17.3. This did not cancel ongoing coal exploration programs and hence the importance of considering at least some elements of the regulation of these activities.

The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 2: The Appeal of the Motions to Strike and Dismiss

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 2, 2021

In Civil Procedure, Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 2: The Appeal of the Motions to Strike and Dismiss

Cases Commented On: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2020 ABQB 513 (CanLII); PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2021 ABCA 16 (CanLII)

This is part two of a series on the litigation resulting from the bankruptcy of Sequoia. The first part covered the first application to strike, and the applications to intervene in the appeal of that decision at the Court of Appeal.

This part covers two decisions in the Sequoia bankruptcy saga: 2020 ABQB 513 (CanLII), a costs decisions at the Queen’s Bench level, and 2021 ABCA 16 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal decision overturning that costs decision and the decision to strike the majority of the Trustee’s claims.

The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 1: The Motion to Strike and the Interveners

By Drew Yewchuk

On January 18, 2021

In Civil Procedure, Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 1: The Motion to Strike and the Interveners

Cases Commented on: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2020 ABQB 6 (CanLII) and PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2020 ABCA 417 (CanLII)

The Orphan Well Association (OWA) was back in court on December 10, 2020 for the appeal of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2020 ABQB 6 (CanLII). The OWA is concerned about the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (Redwater), and specifically whether the finding that abandonment and reclamation obligations (ARO) are not “provable claims” in bankruptcy implies that ARO are not “liabilities” for the purposes of determining the financial situation of a corporation and hence whether a corporation is solvent.

The Redwater decision concluded that a trustee for a bankrupt oil and gas company had to use the bankrupt estate’s assets to pay for the ARO of non-producing wells, and could not “disclaim” them. Redwater started as a bankruptcy case under the name Redwater Energy Corporation (Re), 2016 ABQB 278 (CanLII). (I recommend Nigel Bankes’ earlier posts on the Queen’s Bench decision and the Court of Appeal decision in Redwater, and Jassmine Girgis’s post on the Supreme Court decision for a complete background.)