Author: Shaun Fluker Page 28 of 38

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

Amended Rules of Practice for the Alberta Energy Regulator: More Bad News for Landowners and Environmental Groups

On December 11, 2013

In Energy, Intervenors and Standing, Responsible Energy Development Act

PDF Version: Amended Rules of Practice for the Alberta Energy Regulator: More Bad News for Landowners and Environmental Groups

Legislation commented on: Alberta Energy Regulator Rules of Practice as amended by Alta Reg 203/2013

In the Fall of 2012 ABlawg published a series of entries concerning the enactment of the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c R-17.3 (REDA) and the transition to a single regulator for energy projects in Alberta. That transition is now underway. The Alberta Energy Regulator is responsible for the approval and ongoing oversight of energy projects – and will soon be responsible for all energy project approvals and oversight other than the disposition of mineral rights by Alberta Energy.

Read More

Linking the California and Québec Emissions Trading Schemes

By Shaun Fluker

On December 3, 2013

In Climate Change

PDF Version: Linking the California and Québec Emissions Trading Schemes

Agreement Commented On: Agreement Between the California Air Resources Board and the Gouvernement Du Québec Concerning the Harmonization and Integration of Cap-and-Trade Programs for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In late September 2013, California and Québec signed an agreement to link their carbon emissions trading schemes effective January 1, 2014. This is the first linkage under the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) – a regional collaboration between British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, and California to establish a carbon reduction and trading scheme that is intended to produce an overall 15% reduction from 2005 level carbon emissions by 2020 amongst the participating jurisdictions. (For more detail on the WCI see here). Alberta is notably absent from the WCI.

A Stay of Proceedings and Endangered Species at the Environmental Appeals Board

By Shaun Fluker

On November 28, 2013

In Environmental, Protection of Species

PDF Version: A Stay of Proceedings and Endangered Species at the Environmental Appeals Board

Decision commented on: Hanson and Lindberg v Director, Northern Region, Operations Division, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, re: County of St. Paul (07 November 2013), Appeal Nos. 13-005 and 006-ID1 (AEAB).

This is a decision on preliminary matters by the Alberta Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) concerning an approval issued by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) under the Water Act, RSA 2000 c W-3 to fill a wetland in the County of St. Paul. The EAB hearing on the merits of the approval will be heard in January 2014. Before the EAB in this matter was a request by the Appellants for a stay of the approval pending the merit hearing. The EAB grants the stay, and I will comment on that here. I also note this decision for its discussion on how the federal Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (SARA) applies to this case – keeping in mind SARA is federal legislation but does have some application within provinces and thus it is of ongoing interest to observe how SARA is considered and applied by provincial authorities.

The Smoking Gun Revealed: Alberta Environment Denies Environmental Groups Who Oppose Oil Sands Projects the Right to Participate in the Decision-Making Process

By Shaun Fluker

On October 3, 2013

In Access to Justice, Environmental, Intervenors and Standing

PDF Version: The Smoking Gun Revealed: Alberta Environment Denies Environmental Groups Who Oppose Oil Sands Projects the Right to Participate in the Decision-Making Process

Cases Considered: Pembina Institute v Alberta (Environment and Sustainable Resource Development), 2013 ABQB 567

This decision by Justice Marceau exposes the very disconcerting trend in Alberta of public officials – in particular those with Alberta Environment – opposing the participation of environmental groups in resources and environmental decision-making. Think about this for a minute. Public officials who work on behalf of Albertans and are paid with public funds actively, and in some cases aggressively, oppose participation by organized members of the public seeking input into how public resources are allocated and developed. To be sure, there is something terribly amiss within the corridors of Alberta Environment. The Pembina Institute and the Fort McMurray Environmental Association have served Albertans generally in bringing attention to this by defending their right to participate in the decision-making process concerning a SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) oil sands project along the MacKay River.

Who Gets the Final Say on a Mineral Royalty Calculation? And Some Grumbling on Standard of Review Analysis

By Shaun Fluker

On August 28, 2013

In Administrative Law, Natural Resources

PDF Version: Who Gets the Final Say on a Mineral Royalty Calculation? And Some Grumbling on Standard of Review Analysis

Case considered: Saskatchewan (Ministry of Energy and Resources) v Areva Resources Canada Inc., 2013 SKCA 79

This comment looks at a recent decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal concerning the judicial review of a mineral royalty decision made by Saskatchewan’s Minister of Energy and Resources. In Saskatchewan (Ministry of Energy and Resources) v Areva Resources Canada Inc., 2013 SKCA 79, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upholds a royalty calculation made by the Minister pursuant to the Crown Minerals Act, SS 1984-85-86, c C-50.2 and underlying regulations. I think this case is of interest to ABlawg readers because it involves the judicial review of a mineral royalty decision and it also concerns appellate-level consideration of the standard of review applicable to a ministerial decision – a topic of recent interest in the judiciary and which Professor Olszynski explores in his recent ABlawg post “Of Killer Whales, Sage-grouse, and the Battle Against (Madisonian) Tyranny”.