Author: Drew Yewchuk Page 3 of 19

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.

By: Drew Yewchuk, Shaun Fluker, Martin Olszynski, and Nigel Bankes

Commented on: Final report: Premier’s Review of the Alberta Energy Regulator (May 2024)

PDF Version: The Premier’s Review of the AER: A Recipe for How Industry Can Have its Cake and Eat it too

The UCP government continues to overhaul energy policy and regulation in Alberta with no meaningful opportunities for public scrutiny or input. In January 2023, Premier Danielle Smith appointed a five-person Premier’s Advisory Council on Alberta’s Energy Future (Energy Future Council) to prepare a report on Alberta’s energy future. The terms of reference for this Energy Future Council were set by Ministerial Order 02/2023, which was only released to the public in response to a FOIP request (see When Does a Ministerial Order Have to be Published?). The Energy Future Council submitted its report to the Premier in June 2023, but that report has never been made public. In response to this non-published report, the Minister of Energy and Minerals initiated another panel, similarly closed to public input, to review and report on the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). On May 22, 2024, the Government of Alberta elected to release this second report (the AER Report) under the names of two of the five members of the Energy Future Council, David Yager and Bob Curran. As was the case with the recission of the 1976 Coal Policy, the AER Report demonstrates that the UCP government takes its instructions on the direction of energy policy primarily from industry, rather than from the public it serves.

Waiting for a Credible Cost Estimate of Oil and Gas Closure Liabilities and the Problem with CARL

By Drew Yewchuk

On May 27, 2024

In Oil & Gas

Regulatory Bulletin Commented On: AER Bulletin 2024-11: Conditional Adjustment of Reclamation Liability (CARL) Program and New Edition of Directive 088 and Manual 023

PDF Version: Waiting for a Credible Cost Estimate of Oil and Gas Liabilities and the Problem with CARL

This post describes and assesses the Conditional Adjustment of Reclamation Liability (CARL) Program announced by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) in April 2024 and discusses a central question about Alberta’s conventional oil and gas closure liabilities: the absence of a credible official cost estimate. “Conventional oil and gas” in this context means wells, pipelines, and facilities, but excludes Large Facilities and oilsands mines, which have separate regulatory systems.

Albertan Waits: One Thousand and Three Hundred Delays

By Drew Yewchuk

On April 24, 2024

In Access to Information, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented on: Alberta Energy v Alberta (IPC), 2024 ABKB 198 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Albertan Waits: One Thousand and Three Hundred Delays

Alberta Energy v Alberta (IPC), 2024 ABKB 198 (CanLII) is another decision relating to attempts to use the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP) to obtain records from Alberta Energy about their May 2020 decision to rescind the Coal Development Policy for Alberta (1976). Nigel Bankes described the initial rescission of the policy here and the reinstatement in February 2021 here.

The circumstances in Alberta Energy v Alberta (IPC) are an outrageous example of how Alberta’s elected officials exploit weaknesses in FOIP to conceal how government decision-making works to keep Albertans misinformed or disinformed.

Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex: Limited Statutory Rights of Appeal and The Availability of Judicial Review

By Drew Yewchuk

On April 10, 2024

In Administrative Law, Appellate Practice, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Shaun Fluker, Drew Yewchuk, and Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex: Limited Statutory Rights of Appeal and The Availability of Judicial Review

This post discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8 (CanLII) (Yatar). The decision addresses the availability of judicial review of administrative decisions when the legislature has established a restricted statutory right of appeal for those same decisions. This unanimous decision is an important affirmation of the continued availability of judicial review – at least for grounds of review not covered by the statutory appeal right. However, it seems likely that this decision, especially when read together with the Court’s decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII) (Vavilov) will encourage parallel or sequential filings under both the statutory appeal provisions and for judicial review.

Alphabow’s Regulatory Appeal: The AER Hearing Panel Misunderstood Their Job

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 11, 2024

In Administrative Law, Appellate Practice, Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decision Commented on: Alphabow Energy Ltd: Regulatory Appeals of AER Orders (Regulatory Appeals 1943516 and 1943521), 2024 ABAER 001 (Alphabow)

PDF Version: Alphabow’s Regulatory Appeal: The AER Hearing Panel Misunderstood Their Job

This is a comment on an Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) hearing panel decision following a regulatory appeal of enforcement action against a company that was failing to meet the AER’s expectations for regulatory compliance.

Because of an administrative law mistake by the AER hearing panel, the decision is not what it should be. The AER’s handling of financially troubled corporations with large closure liabilities, significant unpaid debts, compliance troubles, and financial problems is a multi-billion dollar policy problem for Alberta. The decision should have assessed the AER’s policy approach to one of these companies, but the hearing panel misunderstood their role and assessed only procedural fairness and ‘reasonableness’ in the restricted sense that word applies on judicial review. As a result, the decision is less interesting than it should be, since it only finds that what the AER did was legal and says nothing about whether it was good policy or in the public interest.