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.

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 →

(Final?) Brief re: Bill C-69 to the Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources

By: Martin Olszynski

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

PDF Version: (Final?) Brief re: Bill C-69 to the Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources

The Senate Committee on Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources (the Committee) is in the final stages of its hearings into Bill C-69, which if passed will replace the current federal environmental assessment regime pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, SC 2012 c 19 s 52 (CEAA, 2012). What follows is a slightly edited version of the brief that I submitted to the Committee last week, following my appearance before it on April 9, 2019, here in Calgary.

I am pleased to submit this brief to the Committee as part of your review of Bill C-69 – and the proposed Impact Assessment Act (IAA) in particular. Much has been said and written about Bill C-69. In addition to this brief, I myself have written or co-written the following articles/blogs since Bill C-69 was passed in the House of Commons:

My own contributions have been spurred less by a desire to defend the Bill and more to simply set the record straight. That is the spirit that animated my remarks to the Committee on April 9, 2019 and that is at the core of this brief, which is organized as follows: Continue reading →

What is the Concern with Recognizing GHGs as a Matter of National Concern?

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: What is the Concern with Recognizing GHGs as a Matter of National Concern?

Matter Commented On: Reference re: Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act 

All eyes are on Saskatchewan this week, as the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal prepares to hear arguments in the federal greenhouse gas pricing reference. To most observers, this reference may appear to be simply about the constitutionality – or not – of the federal government’s greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing regime set out in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186 (GGPPA). As further set out in this post, however, for constitutional and environmental lawyers and scholars, this reference is less about whether the federal government can regulate GHGs but rather the basis upon which it can do so.

Continue reading →