Author: Nigel Bankes Page 76 of 88

Nigel Bankes is emeritus professor of law at the University of Calgary. Prior to his retirement in June 2021 Nigel held the chair in natural resources law in the Faculty of Law.

Eighteen months ago I blogged on Justice Zinn’s decision in Alberta Wilderness Association v. Canada (Minister of the Environment), 2009 FC 710. The decision dealt with the government’s failure to designate critical habitat for the greater sage grouse under the federal Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29 (SARA) as part of the development of a recovery plan. I thought that Justice Zinn’s decision confirmed that the Courts were prepared to give SARA a fairly robust interpretation and hence I suggested that the legislation was starting to “grow teeth”.

Using water reservations to protect the aesthetic values associated with water courses: a note on the Spray River (Banff)

By Nigel Bankes

On December 20, 2010

In Constitutional, Water Law

PDF version: Using water reservations to protect the aesthetic values associated with water courses: a note on the Spray River (Banff)

Documents commented on: Order in Council 546\49; South Saskatchewan Basin Water Allocation Regulation, Alta. Reg. 307/1991 (rescinded by Bow, Oldman and South Saskatchewan River Basin Water Allocation Order, Alta. Reg. 171/2007); Alberta Environment, TransAlta Utilities (TAU) licence for the Spray River development.

I have been doing some work on Crown water reservations over the last few months and in the course of that came across an example of what at first glance seemed to be the use of a water reservation to preserve the aesthetic qualities of a watercourse. The example also has an interesting constitutional twist that is worth reflecting on.

CCS and CDM: The Eligibility of Carbon Capture and Storage Projects under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol – the Cancun Meeting of the Conference of the Parties

By Nigel Bankes

On December 17, 2010

In Carbon Capture and Storage, Climate Change, International Law

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: CCS and CDM: The Eligibility of Carbon Capture and Storage Projects under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol – the Cancun Meeting of the Conference of the Parties

Decision Commented On: UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, CoP\MoP Decision on “Carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations as clean development mechanism project activities”

The 16th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the 7th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (KP) (CoP\MoP) concluded last week in Cancun. In the assessment of most observers this was a successful meeting but perhaps only because expectations were modest and anything seemed liked progress after the Copenhagen debacle of last year. But there is still much that remains to be done before countries can agree on a successor to the first commitment period of the KP which expires in 2012. Without such agreement the KP will simply die. Some, especially Europe, but also developing countries, want to see a second commitment period. But others, like Canada, point to the lack of inclusiveness of the KP (to say nothing of our own non-compliance which would result in a penalty on Canada during any second commitment period) and want to see an alternative to the KP that imposes emissions reduction obligations not only on the United States (not a party to the KP) but also on the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, India, China) as well as other developing countries.

The Meeting did make progress on number of larger matters including REDD+ (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) and on the narrower issue of the eligibility of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects under the clean development mechanism (CDM) of the KP. The purpose of this note is to provide an update on that debate.

Little Salmon and the juridical nature of the duty to consult and accommodate

By Nigel Bankes

On December 10, 2010

In Aboriginal, Supreme Court of Canada

PDF version: Little Salmon and the juridical nature of the duty to consult and accommodate

Case commented on: Beckman v Little/Salmon Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53

This is the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to deal head on with the relationship between the terms of a constitutionally protected land claims agreement (LCA) and the duty to consult and accommodate. The Court holds that the terms of an LCA do not exhaust the Crown’s duty to consult, or, to put it another way, an LCA is not a complete code but is embedded in the general legal system embracing both constitutional law norms and administrative law norms. This means that the Crown may have consultation obligations that are additive to those found in the text of an LCA. However, the majority articulates a narrow view of the content of the duty to consult and thus it was easy for the Court to find that the Crown — here the Government of Yukon (YTG) — had satisfied its obligations. In my view the content of the duty to consult articulated by the Court in this case is no greater than that which would be provided by the application of standard principles of administrative law. This impoverished view of the duty to consult is hardly likely to contribute to the constitutional goal of inter-societal reconciliation.

The Energy Resources Conservation Board proposes to repeal provincial legislation

By Nigel Bankes

On December 8, 2010

In Administrative Law, Natural Resources

Proposal commented on: ERCB Bulletin 2010 – 42, Invitation for Feedback on Draft Legislative Amendments for Removing Industrial Development Permits for Energy Resource Use

Yes. That’s right. In Bulletin 2010-42 issued on December 2, 2010 the ERCB announced that it is “proposing to remove industrial development permits (IDP) legislation from its mandate”. If that wasn’t clear enough the Bulletin goes on to state that “The ERCB is proposing to repeal Sections 28 to 31 of the CCA, [Coal Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c. C-17], Section 43 of the OGCA, [Oil and Gas Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c. O- 6] and Section 12 of the OSCA [Oil Sands Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c. O- 7]. The ERCB is also proposing to modify the definitions of a “processing plant” and “oil sands products” under the OSCA to provide greater clarity as to what types of facilities would fall under the ERCB’s jurisdiction.”

Author: Nigel Bankes Page 76 of 88

SARA has a spine as well as teeth

Using water reservations to protect the aesthetic values associated with water courses: a note on the Spray River (Banff)

CCS and CDM: The Eligibility of Carbon Capture and Storage Projects under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol – the Cancun Meeting of the Conference of the Parties

Little Salmon and the juridical nature of the duty to consult and accommodate

The Energy Resources Conservation Board proposes to repeal provincial legislation