Author Archives: Martin Olszynski

About Martin Olszynski

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.

Federal Court of Appeal Rejects Another Attempted Appeal of the TMX Leave Decision

By: David V. Wright, Martin Olszynski, and Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Federal Court of Appeal Rejects Another Attempted Appeal of the TMX Leave Decision

Case Commented On: Raincoast Conservation Foundation v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 259

The FCA has released another ruling in relation to its earlier leave decision on the consolidated TMX legal challenges (Raincoast Conservation Foundation v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 224 (Can LII); for our post on that decision see here). In this latest ruling the panel (including Justice David Stratas – who had authored the original decision) dismissed an attempted appeal (at para 4) brought by two NGOs. The panel reiterated Justice Stratas’ previous conclusion in Ignace v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 239 (for our post on that decision see here) that “appeals cannot be brought from this Court to this Court” and again pointing to the lack of any statutory basis for the FCA to hear such an appeal (at paras 7-9). Continue reading →

Everything You Wish You Didn’t Need to Know About the Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Everything You Wish You Didn’t Need to Know About the Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

Matter Commented On: The Alberta Inquiry, OC 125/2019

“Good faith” in this context…means carrying out the statute according to its intent and for its purpose; it means good faith in acting with a rational appreciation of that intent and purpose and not with an improper intent and for an alien purpose; it does not mean for the purposes of punishing a person for exercising an unchal­lengeable right; it does not mean arbitrarily and illegally attempting to divest a citizen of an incident of his civil status.

Roncarelli v Duplessis, [1959] SCR 121, 1959 CanLII 50 (SCC) at 143 (per Rand J) Continue reading →

TMX Litigation Takes an Unusual Turn at the Federal Court of Appeal

By: David V. Wright, Martin Olszynski, and Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: TMX Litigation Takes an Unusual Turn at the Federal Court of Appeal

Case Commented On: Ignace v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 239 (CanLII)

Last week, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) issued another ruling in the TMX saga dealing with the consolidated challenges to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX) project. This decision comes just three weeks after Raincoast Conservation Foundation v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 224 (Can LII) (Raincoast), where the FCA granted leave to six parties to commence judicial reviews challenging the Governor in Council’s decision to re-approve the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project. In this most recent decision, Justice David Stratas concluded that two of those six parties, Tsleil Waututh Nation (TWN) and Squamish Nation (Squamish), had filed applications that went beyond the narrow parameters set out in the September 4thcourt order granting leave. Accordingly, the Court issued an order allowing both parties to file amended notices of application that comply with the restrictions in the initial order. In this post, we briefly summarize this latest and fairly unusual development and conclude with a brief comment on what might have led counsel to push the boundaries in this matter. Continue reading →

Federal Court of Appeal Provides Reasons in TMX Leave Applications

By: Nigel Bankes, Martin Olszynski and David Wright

PDF Version: Federal Court of Appeal Provides Reasons in TMX Leave Applications

Decision Commented On: Raincoast Conservation Foundation v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 224.

On September 4, 2019, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) granted leave to six of the twelve parties who had applied for judicial review of Cabinet’s decision to re-approve the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project. This post situates this most recent development in the broader TMX context and examines this rare instance of the FCA providing reasons in a leave decision. Continue reading →

Setting the Record Straight on Federal and Provincial Jurisdiction Over the Environmental Assessment of Resource Projects in the Provinces

By: Martin Olszynski and Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Setting the Record Straight on Federal and Provincial Jurisdiction Over the Environmental Assessment of Resource Projects in the Provinces

Matter Commented On:Bill C-69: An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to ament the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Alberta’s new premier has recently threatened to sue the federal government over Bill C-69, the Liberal government’s attempt to restore some credibility to Canada’s environmental assessment regime. More specifically, Premier Kenney has recently been asserting that section 92A of the Constitution Act, 1982, which gives the provinces jurisdiction over the development of non-renewable natural resources, precludes the federal government from assessing what the Premier describes as “provincial projects”: “[BillC-69] gives a new federal agency the power to regulate provincial projects, such as in situ oil sands developments and petrochemical refineries, which are entirely within a province’s borders and already subject to provincial regulation. It disregards a landmark Supreme Court ruling on jurisdiction and the balance between federal and provincial powers spelled out in the Constitution — including section 92A in which provinces have exclusive authority over non-renewable resource projects.” In making these comments, the Premier contradicts almost three decades of settled jurisprudence with respect to the federal and provincial division of powers over the environment generally, and federal jurisdiction to conduct environmental assessments specifically. Continue reading →