Author: Shaun Fluker Page 21 of 37

B.Comm. (Alberta), LL.B. (Victoria), LL.M. (Calgary).
Associate Professor.
Please click here for more information.

By: Shaun Fluker, Elliot Holzman, and Ian Pillai

PDF Version: Impaired Driving and Approved Screening Devices

Case Commented On: Goodwin v British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2015 SCC 46; Wilson v British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2015 SCC 47

In October the Supreme Court of Canada issued two companion judgments concerning the constitutionality and meaning of the Automatic Roadside Prohibition (ARP) provisions set out in the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996, c 318. In Goodwin v British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) the Supreme Court upheld British Columbia’s ARP scheme as valid provincial law that does not unlawfully invade federal criminal law power or contravene section 11 of the Charter, but the Court also ruled that the seizure of a breath sample using an approved screening device (ASD) under the scheme as previously administered was an unreasonable seizure under section 8 of the Charter. In ruling as such, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Chambers Justice who heard the matters back in 2010. Subsequent to that initial ruling the Province of British Columbia amended the ARP scheme in an attempt to remedy the unreasonable seizure, and the Supreme Court’s companion judgment in Wilson v British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) concerns the interpretation of these new provisions employing principles of statutory interpretation. In this comment we provide an overview of the ARP scheme and the issues raised by the use of ASDs in impaired driving cases, and bring this matter into an Alberta context. We also examine the Supreme Court’s constitutional analysis in Goodwin and its application of the principles of statutory interpretation in Wilson.

Court of Appeal Affords Deference to Alberta Securities Commission in Platinum Equities Case

By Shaun Fluker

On November 9, 2015

In Administrative Law, Securities

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Court of Appeal Affords Deference to Alberta Securities Commission in Platinum Equities Case

Case Commented On: Alberta (Securities Commission) v Chandran, 2015 ABCA 323

In February 2014 the Alberta Securities Commission found that Shariff Chandran was the governing mind of an elaborate scheme of capital market misconduct under the general umbrella of Platinum Equities and ruled that Chandran and others were guilty of contravening various provisions of the Securities Act, RSA 2000, c S-4 concerning the illegal distribution of approximately $58 million in securities to the public, misrepresentations, fraud, and conduct contrary to the public interest (See Re Platinum Equities Inc, 2014 ABASC 71). In addition to these administrative proceedings before the Commission, there are civil and criminal proceedings underway concerning Platinum Equities. In September 2014 the Commission issued its sanctions order 2014 ABASC 376 against Chandran and others for their misconduct under the Securities Act. Chandran asked the Court of Appeal to set aside a portion of these sanctions ordered by the Commission, and in Alberta (Securities Commission) v Chandran the panel of Justices Martin, O’Ferrall, and Shutz dismisses his appeal. The Court’s decision is a good example of how deference should work in substantive judicial review.

Section 38 of the Securities Act provides for a right of appeal to the Court by a person who is directly affected by a Commission decision. Notably section 38 does not limit this right of appeal to questions of law and neither does it require leave of the Court. Moreover, section 38 expressly states the Court may confirm, vary or reject the Commission decision, direct the Commission to re-hear the matter, or even decide the matter itself and substitute its decision for that of the Commission. In short, section 38 is a very generous and potentially intrusive statutory appeal provision.

What Happens When an Insolvent Energy Company Fails to Pay its Surface Rent to a Landowner? Part 2

By Shaun Fluker

On October 27, 2015

In Oil & Gas

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: What Happens When an Insolvent Energy Company Fails to Pay its Surface Rent to a Landowner? Part 2

Cases Commented On: PetroGlobe Inc v Lemke, 2015 ABSRB 740; Portas v PetroGlobe Inc, 2015 ABSRB 708; Rodin v PetroGlobe Inc, 2015 ABSRB 737

This comment is an update to my July 2014 post What happens when an insolvent energy company fails to pay its surface rent to a landowner?. Readers are directed to this earlier comment for more background to this case and for this comment. In short, the matter involves the failure by PetroGlobe to pay its 2013 rent under a surface lease to the lessors Doug and Marg Lemke. The Lemkes filed an application with the Alberta Surface Rights Board (“Board”) under section 36 of the Surface Rights Act, RSA 2000 c S-24 to recover the unpaid rent. PetroGlobe was assigned into bankruptcy in 2013 under the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3, and in its 2014 Lemke decision 2014 ABSRB 401 the Board ruled this federal legislation precludes the Board from proceeding with the Lemkes’ section 36 application under the Surface Rights Act. In April 2015, then Premier Jim Prentice announced he was asking the Board to reconsider its 2014 Lemke decision. The Board subsequently struck a new panel to hear additional submissions, and earlier this month the Board rescinded 2014 ABSRB 401 and replaced it with 2015 ABSRB 740. This new ruling from the Board upholds its earlier decision not to proceed with the Lemkes’ section 36 application, but does so with more reasons. This comment examines this new reasoning.

The Fundamentals of Tribunal Standing and Bootstrapping in Judicial Review

By Shaun Fluker

On October 14, 2015

In Administrative Law, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: The Fundamentals of Tribunal Standing and Bootstrapping in Judicial Review

Case Commented On: Ontario (Energy Board) v Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2015 SCC 44

In Ontario (Energy Board) v Ontario Power Generation Inc. the Supreme Court of Canada revisits the fundamentals of standing for a tribunal in a judicial review or statutory appeal of its impugned decision. The substance of this case involves utility regulation in Ontario, and my colleague Nigel Bankes has written on that substance here. The relevant facts for this comment are simply that the Ontario Energy Board disallowed certain labour costs submitted by Ontario Power Generation in its rate application to the Board. The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed an appeal by Ontario Power, but the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed this finding, set aside the Board’s decision, and remitted the case back to the Board for reconsideration. The Board appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. No doubt in response to what then appears to be the Board attempting to defend its impugned decision before the Supreme Court, the proper role of the Ontario Energy Board in these proceedings was raised and my comment here focuses on what the Supreme Court of Canada decides in this regard.

The Niqab, the Oath of Citizenship, and the Blurry Line between Law and Policy

By Shaun Fluker

On September 28, 2015

In Immigration and Refugee Law

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: The Niqab, the Oath of Citizenship, and the Blurry Line between Law and Policy

Case Commented On: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Ishaq, 2015 FCA 194

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Ishaq involves a challenge by Zunera Ishaq against a federal requirement that she remove her niqab (a veil that covers most of the face) when taking the Oath of Citizenship at a public citizenship ceremony administered under the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29. Ishaq was previously successful at the Federal Court Trial Division before Mr. Justice Keith Boswell in Ishaq v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 156 and on September 15 the Federal Court of Appeal issued a 6 paragraph decision from the Bench dismissing the Minister’s appeal and confirming that the federal requirement is unlawful. This is a significant policy issue for the Harper government. The Prime Minister himself has spoken strongly in favour of the requirement (see here), and not surprisingly the matter is now a significant issue in the federal election campaign. This comment uses the Federal Court of Appeal decision as an opportunity to revisit the rules governing the somewhat difficult relationship between law and policy.