Daniella Marchand

Public Interest Law Clinic staff have been monitoring the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (SARA) public registry from the early days of the clinic in 2016, when the clinic looked at a proposed permitting policy under SARA. Maintaining the public registry is a requirement of SARA (see SARA sections 120-124), and one type of document that must be posted to the registry are the explanations for the granting of section 73 permits to affect species at risk or their critical habitat. The clinic has found instances where they are either never being posted at all or posted very late – so late that the permits are expired by several months by the time they are posted to the registry. This blog describes the problem with the long delays in posting explanations for permits and argues these delays violate the intention of SARA. This post ends with a brief reflection on the usefulness of online registries meant to increase transparency.

Considering the Court’s Reputation: Injunctions and Civil Disobedience

By Daniella Marchand

On October 29, 2021

In Injunctions, Protest

By: Daniella Marchand*

PDF Version: Considering the Court’s Reputation: Injunctions and Civil Disobedience

Decision Commented On: Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v Rainforest Flying Squad, 2021 BCSC 1903 (CanLII)

On September 28^th, 2021, Justice Douglas Thompson declined to grant Teal Cedar Products Ltd. an extension to an injunction that was put in place in response to the growing protests, demonstrations, and blockades preventing Teal Cedar’s access to Fairy Creek in British Columbia. Fairy Creek is located northeast of Port Renfrew, on the territory of the Pacheedaht First Nation. This judgement came as the protests and blockades entered their second year, and recently led to the highest number of arrests during an act of civil disobedience in Canadian history.

Furthering Expression in the Public Interest: SCC Provides Interpretation of Ontario’s Anti-SLAPP Legislation

By Daniella Marchand

On October 26, 2020

In Access to Justice, Civil Procedure, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Daniella Marchand and Nafisa Abdul Razak

PDF Version: Furthering Expression in the Public Interest: SCC Provides Interpretation of Ontario’s Anti-SLAPP Legislation

Case Commented On: 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22 (CanLII)

Last month, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released their decision in the Pointes Protection case, dismissing 1704604 Ontario Ltd.’s appeal and upholding the Ontario Court of Appeal’s (ONCA) decision. This commentary follows up our first post regarding the ONCA’s decision on 1704604 Ontario Ltd v Pointes Protection Association, 2018 ONCA 685 (CanLII). In our previous post, we advocated for the enactment of a similar provision in Alberta as exists in Ontario, relying on the analysis set out by Justice David Doherty and the arguments made by various interveners as to the necessity of anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) legislation. For background on the previous proceedings, please see our other post titled “Is Now the Time to Consider Anti-SLAPP Legislation in Alberta? A Reflection on Pointes Protection”.

Here, we continue to recommend the introduction of similar anti-SLAPP legislation in Alberta. In Pointes Protection, the SCC provides a detailed analysis of Ontario’s anti-SLAPP legislation, perhaps expecting that this decision may guide the development of similar legislation in other provinces and territories. In this post, we will examine the test as interpreted by the SCC, and how this framework presents a novel opportunity for adoption of anti-SLAPP legislation to the Alberta legislature.