Author Archives: Arlene Kwasniak

About Arlene Kwasniak

Professor Emerita of Law. Member of the Alberta Bar. Please click here for more information.

Federal Environmental Assessment Re-Envisioned to Regain Public Trust – The Expert Panel Report

By Arlene Kwasniak

PDF Version: Federal Environmental Assessment Re-Envisioned to Regain Public Trust – The Expert Panel Report

Report Commented On: Expert Panel on the Review of Federal Environmental Assessment Processes, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada

This post considers the report of the Expert Panel (Panel) on the Review of Federal Environmental Assessment Processes, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada released April 5, 2017 (EP Report). It provides background to the Report and focusses on three issues: The Purpose of Assessment, Who Assesses, and Interjurisdictional Assessments. Other faculty members may be providing further comments on the EP Report in future posts.

About the Panel and the EP Report

The Prime Minister’s November 2015 Environment and Climate Change mandate letter instructed Minister Catherine McKenna to commence a number of law review and reform initiatives, including to “immediately review Canada’s environmental assessment processes to regain public trust ….” Minister McKenna followed through by establishing the Panel. Through September to December the Panel held public and indigenous meetings in numerous locations in Canada, invited written and online submissions, and formed a Multi-Interest Advisory Committee (MIAC) to provide perspective and advice. Professor Shaun Fluker with Anne Marie Syslak, Executive Director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, presented to the Panel in Calgary on November 23 (see ABlawg post here), and Professors Martin Olszynski and Arlene Kwasniak separately presented on November 21 (Olszynski’s ABlawg post is here). All written submissions to the Panel are accessible on the Panel’s website. At the Panel’s behest, Professors Kwasniak and Olszynski additionally provided expert written advice, and participated in a meeting hosted by the Panel in Ottawa in February. The Panel received over 800 written submissions, heard over 400 oral presentations, and received 2,673 responses to the online Choicebook, a survey-like tool designed to gauge views on assessment reform. The public has until May 5th to comment on the EP Report, through the website Let’s Talk Environmental Assessment. From my reading of the Report, the Panel clearly took its mission to regain public trust in federal environmental assessment very seriously and, excepting for reservations mentioned later, will be successful in its mission if government follows through with legislation that faithfully reproduces its bold vision in legislative details. Continue reading →

The New Alberta Wetland Policy: White Area Wetlands, Just a Pawn in the Game?

PDF Version: The New Alberta Wetland Policy: White Area Wetlands, Just a Pawn in the Game?

Policy commented on:  Alberta Wetland Policy

On September 10, 2013, the Alberta Government released its new Alberta Wetland Policy (“New Wetland Policy”).  The release was long anticipated. It was preceded by 20 years of an “interim policy” applying to only part of the province, and by about 10 years of both lengthy and spurts and starts of consultations and processes aimed toward the province developing a comprehensive wetland policy approach applicable to the entire province. This ABlawg post presents and discusses the New Wetland Policy in a comparative, legal/political, and historical context. It describes the importance of wetlands and outlines wetland protection and conservation approaches in Alberta and elsewhere. It reviews the New Wetland Policy in this context to demonstrate how the New Wetland Policy compromises the protection of slough/marsh wetlands. A forthcoming ABlawg post by University of Calgary LLM student Dave Poulton will focus on the New Wetland Policy’s mitigation hierarchy and the offset provisions.

Continue reading →

The Responsible Energy Development Act and the Water Act – cloudy confluences

PDF version: The Responsible Energy Development Act and the Water Act – cloudy confluences

After 18 consecutive hours of steamed debate Alberta Legislature passed Bill 2, the Responsible Energy Development Act, (REDA) into law on November 21st, 2012 (see Calgary Herald, 11-21-2012, here).  The Bill received Royal Assent on December 10th, and except for some exceptions, comes into force on Proclamation (REDA, s 113).  The ABlawg has distilled much of the Bill in its numerous discussions posted on Bill 2 (see posts under the category Responsible Energy Development Act here) and will continue its stream of comments on the REDA.  This ABlawg post navigates some of the actual and potential impacts of the REDA on water management in the Province under the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3 (canlii), one of the “specified enactments” under the REDA.  As will be seen, subject to forthcoming regulations, there could be a deluge of potential impacts, that could, unless the regulations are very clear, circumscribed, and publicized,  obfuscate water management and perplex water users and the public.

Continue reading →

Decapitating the Fisheries Act by removing the HADD: A Critique of the Rationale

PDF version: Decapitating the Fisheries Act  by removing the HADD: A Critique of the Rationale

Decision considered: Federal government proposal to remove habitat protection from the Fisheries Act.

The federal government of Canada proposes to remove the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act RSC 2000, c F-14, s 35. Countless Canadians have vigorously spoken out against this proposal because removing these provisions would be a critical and fundamental change not only to federal legislative approach, but also to the management, protection, and well-being of fisheries in Canada. Continue reading →

Blow over? Think twice before blaming it on the flu.

PDF version: Blow over? Think twice before blaming it on the flu. 

Decision considered: R v Kasim, 2011 ABCA 236.

The Respondent claimed to have drunk no more than 3 or 4 beers between 7 and 8:30 p.m. on September 18, 2008. He was behind the wheel soon after. At about 9 p.m. he complied with a lawful demand for an Intoxilyzer breath sample and the two samples he provided measured 100 mg percent, or 20 mg percent over the legal maximum of 80 mg of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. At trial the Respondent testified that his body temperature was elevated as he was suffering from the flu or a fever that day. This testimony was corroborated, and the trial judge accepted it. The Respondent’s expert witness, Dr. Malicky, testified that given the Respondent’s elimination rate, and an elevated body temperature, “his blood alcohol level at the time should have been approximately 36 mg percent if he had three containers of beer, and 60 mg percent if he had four containers of beer” (R v Kasim, [2010] AJ No 969, para 64). The Respondent argued that the test results were therefore askew and that raised a reasonable doubt as to whether he the violated the Criminal Code (RSC, 1985, c C-46). Both the Provincial Court judge and Queen’s Bench summary conviction appeal judge found for the Respondent. By consent order the Crown appealed to the Court of Appeal on a single issue: “The summary conviction appeal judge erred in law in her interpretation of s. 258(1) (c) of the Criminal Code” (CA decision at para 7). These Criminal Code provisions set out presumptions that subject to certain time and other limitations Intoxilyzer readings of blood alcohol are accurate. The provisions also limit permissible challenges to the presumed accuracy.

Continue reading →