Author: Martin Olszynski Page 7 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.

Matters Commented On: Alberta (Attorney General) v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 84 (CanLII) reversing British Columbia (Attorney General) v Alberta (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1195 (CanLII), and Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act, SA 2018, c P-21.5

The Turn Off the Taps legislation ((or, more properly, Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act, SA 2018, c P-21.5) (PCEPA)) was passed under the Notley government in 2018. There have always been serious doubts as to the constitutional validity of the legislation (for discussion of the principal objections to the legislation, see ABlawg here) and it is hardly surprising that the Attorney General of British Columbia (AGBC) commenced actions first in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and later in the Federal Court seeking to test the validity of the Act. As described by a majority of the Federal Court of Appeal in Alberta (Attorney General) v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 84 (CanLII) [Turn off the Taps IV], the AGBC had two main arguments. The first was that PCEPA is inconsistent with s 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3; the second was that the PCEPA is a law in relation to interprovincial trade that falls outside the protection offered by s 92A(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the so-called ‘resource amendment’ to the Constitution. In particular, the AGBC noted that s 92A only protects laws pertaining to “primary production” as defined in the Sixth Schedule, and yet the PCEPA purported to apply to refined fuels which fell outside that definition. The Sixth Schedule provides as follows:

Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part III (Commentary)

By Martin Olszynski

On April 30, 2021

In Climate Change, Environmental, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part III (Commentary)

Case Commented On: References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII)

This is the third in a series of posts regarding the Supreme Court of Canada’s much-anticipated reference opinion regarding the constitutionality of the federal government’s greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing regime: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII) (GGPPA Reference) (Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186 (GGPPA)). The first post summarized the legislation and the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Richard Wagner. The second post summarized the dissenting opinions of Justices Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown and Malcolm Rowe. In this post, we provide commentary on four aspects of the Reference: the breadth of the matter and the characterization of the GGPPA, the constitutional implications of minimum national standards as defined in this case, the role of provincial inability and extraprovincial effects, and finally the role of domestic courts in adjudicating a global problem like climate change

Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part II (The Dissents)

By Martin Olszynski

On April 29, 2021

In Climate Change, Environmental, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part II (The Dissents)

Case Commented On: References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII)

This is the second in a series of posts on the Supreme Court of Canada’s much-anticipated reference opinion regarding the constitutionality of the federal government’s greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing regime: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act , 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII) (GGPPA Reference) (Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186 (GGPPA). The first post summarized the legislation and the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Richard Wagner. In this post, we summarize the dissenting opinions of Justices Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown and Malcolm Rowe. Our goal in reviewing the dissents is to highlight areas of agreement and disagreement between the majority and the dissents.

Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part I (The Majority Opinion)

By Martin Olszynski

On April 28, 2021

In Climate Change, Environmental, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part I (The Majority Opinion)

Case Commented On: References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII)

The essential factual backdrop to these appeals is uncontested. Climate change is real. It is caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities, and it poses a grave threat to humanity’s future. The only way to address the threat of climate change is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions… (References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII) at para 2)

On March 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada released its much-anticipated reference opinion regarding the constitutionality of the federal government’s greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing regime. In Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act , 2021 SCC 11 (CanLII) (GGPPA Reference or the Reference), a majority of the Supreme Court held that the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186 (GGPPA) fell within Parliament’s residual power to make laws for “peace, order, and good government” (POGG), as set out in section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Richard Wagner concluded that setting minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions was a “matter of national concern” (at para 4), a recognized branch of the POGG power. Justices Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown, and Malcolm Rowe dissented, each for different reasons. Importantly, Justice Côté agreed with the majority on the national concern issue.

“Textbook Climate Denialism”: A Submission to the Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

By Martin Olszynski

On January 14, 2021

In Energy

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: “Textbook Climate Denialism”: A Submission to the Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

Matter Commented On: Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

After two deadline extensions and an additional $1 million dollars, Premier Jason Kenney’s Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns is entering its final stretch (for previous ABlawg posts, see here, here, here, and here). Back in October of 2020, I decided to seek, and was granted, standing to participate in the Inquiry. As has been my practice in such matters, what follows is my submission, dated December 15, 2020, modified only for formatting purposes. Links to reports provided to me by the Commissioner are to the Inquiry’s website, which has recently been updated.

Author: Martin Olszynski Page 7 of 18

The Curious Demise of Alberta’s Turn Off the Taps Legislation

Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part III (Commentary)

Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part II (The Dissents)

Supreme Court of Canada Re-writes the National Concern Test and Upholds Federal Greenhouse Gas Legislation: Part I (The Majority Opinion)

“Textbook Climate Denialism”: A Submission to the Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns