Author: Martin Olszynski Page 15 of 18

B.Sc. in Biology (Saskatchewan), LL.B. (Saskatchewan), LL.M. Specialization in Environmental Law (University of California at Berkeley).
Assistant Professor.
Please click here for more information.

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: All I Want for Christmas is the Justification for Shell Jackpine

Case Commented On: Adam v Canada (Environment), [2014] FC 1185

On December 9, 2014, the Federal Court rendered its decision in Adam v. Canada (Environment). Chief Allan Adam, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), challenged two federal government decisions pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19, s 52 (CEAA) in relation to Shell Canada’s proposed Jackpine oil sands mine expansion project. The first was the Governor in Council’s (GiC) determination pursuant to section 52(4) that the project’s anticipated significant adverse environmental effects are “justified in the circumstances.” The second was the Minister’s “Decision Statement” pursuant to section 54, which contains the conditions subject to which the project may proceed. In a decision that reads somewhat tersely but that also covers a lot of ground, primarily Aboriginal consultation and division of powers issues, Justice Tremblay-Lamer dismissed the ACFN’s challenge. This post – the first of what will likely be a series – focuses on the first challenged decision: the GiC’s determination that the project’s significant adverse environmental effects are justified.

Whose (Pipe)line is it Anyway?

By Martin Olszynski

On December 3, 2014

In Constitutional, Environmental

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Whose (Pipe)line is it Anyway?

Document Commented On: Quebec’s Letter to TransCanada Corp. Imposing 7 Conditions on Energy East

On November 18^th, on the heels of a unanimous vote of non-confidence in the National Energy Board (NEB) by Quebec’s National Assembly, Quebec’s Environment Minister sent a letter to TransCanada outlining seven conditions that the company must meet before the province “accepts” the Quebec portion of the company’s proposed pipeline. Most of the conditions are similar to those stipulated by British Columbia with respect to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline (e.g. world class emergency and spill response plans, adequate consultation with First Nations) with three notable differences. First, while Quebec insists that the project generate economic benefits for all Quebecers, unlike British Columbia it is not asking for its “fair share” (whatever that meant). Second, because Energy East involves the repurposing of an existing natural gas pipeline, Quebec insists that there be no impact on its natural gas supply. Finally, and the focus of this post, Quebec insists on a full environmental assessment (EA) of the Quebec portion of the pipeline and the upstream greenhouse gas emissions from production outside the province – something that the NEB has consistently refused to assess in its other pipeline reviews. Last week, Ontario joined Quebec in imposing these conditions (see here for the MOU). Premier Kathleen Wynne acknowledged that “Alberta needs to move its resources across the country,” but argued that the two provinces “have to protect people in Ontario and Quebec.” In this post, I consider whether this condition is consistent with the current approach to the regulation of interprovincial pipelines.

Regulatory Negligence Redux: Alberta Environment’s Motion to Strike in Fracking Litigation Denied

By Martin Olszynski

On November 14, 2014

In Environmental, Torts

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Regulatory Negligence Redux: Alberta Environment’s Motion to Strike in Fracking Litigation Denied

Case Commented On: Ernst v EnCana Corporation, 2014 ABQB 672

This post follows up on a previous one regarding Ms. Ernst’s lawsuit against EnCana, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB, now the AER) and Alberta Environment for the alleged contamination of her groundwater as a result of EnCana’s hydraulic fracturing activity (fracking) near Rosebud, Alberta. My first post considered the ERCB’s application to have the action against it struck, with respect to which it was successful (see 2013 ABQB 537 (Ernst I), affirmed 2014 ABCA 285 (Ernst II)). On November 7, 2014, Chief Justice Wittmann released the most recent decision (Ernst III) in what is shaping up to be the legal saga of the decade. Like the ERCB before it, Alberta Environment sought to have the regulatory negligence action against it struck on the basis that it owed Ms. Ernst no private law “duty of care” and that, in any event, it enjoyed statutory immunity. In the alternative, Alberta sought summary judgment in its favor. In contrast to his earlier decision agreeing to strike the action against the ERCB, the Chief Justice dismissed both applications.

In my previous post, I noted some inconsistencies between Ernst I and II with respect to the duty of care analysis and suggested that courts should strive to apply the applicable test (the Anns test) in a predictable and sequential manner, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Cooper v Hobbart, 2001 SCC 79 (still the authority for the content of that test in Canada) being valued first and foremost for bringing some much needed transparency to the exercise. In this respect, the Chief Justice’s most recent decision is exemplary. In this post, I highlight those aspects of the decision that help to explain the different result in this case, as well as those that in my view address some of the concerns I expressed in my previous post.

Revisiting Regulatory Negligence: The Ernst Fracking Litigation

By Martin Olszynski

On October 15, 2014

In Environmental, Torts

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Revisiting Regulatory Negligence: The Ernst Fracking Litigation

Case Commented On: Ernst v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2014 ABCA 285

On September 15, 2014, the Alberta Court of Appeal released its decision in Ernst v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board). Ms. Ernst owns land near Rosebud, Alberta, and is suing EnCana Corporation, the ERCB (now the Alberta Energy Regulator) and Alberta Environment (now Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources Development) for negligence in relation to the alleged contamination of her groundwater as a result of EnCana’s hydraulic fracturing (fracking) activities in the area. The ERCB (but not Alberta Environment – a point further discussed below) applied to have the action against it struck. The case management judge, Chief Justice Wittmann, agreed that this particular negligence claim was not supported in law: he found that the ERCB owed no private law duty of care to Ms. Ernst and that, in any event, any claim was barred by s 43 of the ERCB’s enabling legislation (see Ernst v. EnCana Corporation, 2013 ABQB 537). The Alberta Court of Appeal (Justices Côté, Watson and Slatter, writing as “The Court”) dismissed Ms. Ernst’s appeal. This post considers the regulatory negligence aspects of both the Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal decisions.

Federal Court of Appeal Reviews CEAA “Justification” Determination for Lower Churchill Falls

By Martin Olszynski

On September 19, 2014

In Administrative Law, Environmental

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Federal Court of Appeal Reviews CEAA “Justification” Determination for Lower Churchill Falls

Case Commented On: Council of the Innu of Ekuanitshit v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FCA 189

At least three times in the course of the past year, an environmental assessment (EA) panel convened under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, SC 2012, c 19 (CEAA, 2012) has concluded that a project is likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects: Shell’s Jackpine Mine Expansion, Taseko’s New Prosperity Mine, and Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline. In the case of both Jackpine and Northern Gateway, the federal Cabinet determined that these effects were “justified in the circumstances,” but not so for New Prosperity. In none of these instances, however, did the relevant “Decision Statement” pursuant to section 54 of CEAA, 2012 contain any explanation or reasons for Cabinet’s decision. The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Council of the Innu suggests that this approach is wrong. This litigation involved the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Project proposed by Nalcor in Newfoundland. This project was reviewed under the previous CEAA regime but the relevant provisions are virtually unchanged. Like the three EAs referred to above, the panel concluded that the project was likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects. Unlike the three projects referred to above, however, the government did provide a detailed explanation for its determination that the significant adverse environmental effects were justified in the circumstances. The Council challenged this determination (the Council also challenged the sufficiency of Aboriginal consultation; this post focuses only on the justification issue).