Author Archives: David V Wright

About David V Wright

M.A. (Dalhousie), J.D. (Dalhousie), LL.M. (Stanford). Associate Professor. Please click here for more information.

Canada’s Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy: A New Roadmap in a Long Journey

By: David V. Wright

Matter Commented On: Canada’s Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy

PDF Version: Canada’s Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy: A New Roadmap in a Long Journey

After years of requests and proposals from Indigenous Modern Treaty parties, the federal government has released Canada’s Collaborative Modern Treaty Implementation Policy. This is the latest development in a series of law and policy reforms introduced by the federal government in this area in recent years. The main purpose of the new policy is to “support the full, effective, and timely implementation of all current and future Modern Treaties in Canada, with the specific goal of advancing a systemic shift in institutional culture” (Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, News Release, “Modern Treaty Partners and Canada Launch Co-Developed Policy to Transform Intergovernmental Relationships” (28 February 2023)). This short post explains the context into which the new Policy enters and provides a succinct overview of its contents. Continue reading →

Duty to Consult, Honour of the Crown, Project Assessment, and Land-Use Planning in a Modern Treaty Context: More Clarity from the Supreme Court of the Yukon

By: David Wright

Matter Commented On: First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun v Yukon (Government of), 2023 YKSC 5 (CanLII) (Metallic Minerals)

PDF Version: Duty to Consult, Honour of the Crown, Project Assessment, and Land-Use Planning in a Modern Treaty Context: More Clarity from the Supreme Court of the Yukon

The duty to consult and accommodate is now a mature area of jurisprudence, including case law that is “replete with indicia” (Coldwater First Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 34 (CanLII) at para 41) of what constitutes meaningful consultation. One area that continues to evolve, however, is Crown consultation obligations and the honour of the Crown in modern treaty contexts. The landmark Supreme Court of Canada cases of Beckman v Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation (2010 SCC 53 (CanLII)) and First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun v Yukon (2017 SCC 58 (CanLII)), both originating from lower courts in the Yukon, set out the contours of this legal landscape, but some uncertainty remains. In First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun v Yukon (Government of), 2023 YKSC 5 (CanLII) (Metallic Minerals), the Supreme Court of Yukon (YKSC) provides helpful judicial interpretation and observations in this area. In particular, Chief Justice Suzanne M. Duncan clarifies the law with respect to the Honour of the Crown and the duty to consult and accommodate in context of project-level assessment and land-use planning in the Yukon. This short post provides an overview of the case, as well as brief commentary regarding key points. Continue reading →

BC Climate Accountability Law is Justiciable (But Weak Climate Plan is Reasonable)

By: David V. Wright

Case Commented On: Sierra Club of British Columbia Foundation v British Columbia (Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy), 2023 BCSC 74

PDF Version: BC Climate Accountability Law is Justiciable (But Weak Climate Plan is Reasonable)

In a judgement released last week, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC) ruled that requirements to report on progress toward climate change targets under the Climate Change Accountability Act, SBC 2007, c 42 (CCAA) are justiciable. This short post provides context for the decision in Sierra Club of British Columbia Foundation v British Columbia (Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy), 2023 BCSC 74 (Sierra Club), summarizes key points, and reflects on potential implications. Overall, this BCSC judgement is a welcome development in the climate change litigation context where justiciability is typically a live and uncertain issue. Continue reading →

Just Transition Friction Needs Interest-Based Negotiation

By: David V. Wright

Matter Commented On: Proposed federal just transition legislation

PDF Version: Just Transition Friction Needs Interest-Based Negotiation

For three weeks every January, I teach the University of Calgary Faculty of Law intensive block course on negotiations. This is a mandatory course for all second-year law students, and it’s a key part of the Calgary Curriculum. Each year I look for contemporary topics and events to use as examples that bring to life the approaches and concepts that we cover in the course. Like any good negotiations course, a core part of the curriculum is focused on interest-based negotiations, the approach long advocated by dispute resolution and negotiation experts around the world. This feeds one of the course’s key learning points: begin negotiations with an interest-based approach and then shift to more competitive, distributive stances later in the process if necessary. An obvious example for this year is the current friction between the federal government and the Alberta government with respect to a proposed federal just transition initiative. This short post examines what is painfully obvious and disconcerting in the present context: both levels of government contributing to this current tension are flouting even the most basic best practises in negotiations. They are adopting positional bargaining instead of an interest-based, problem-solving approach. While Alberta has been particularly aggressive, showing signs that it is more interested in short-term political gains than constructive resolution, no one is doing it right. Continue reading →

Rigs in a Parlour: The Freedom Convoy and the Law of Private Nuisance

By: David V Wright and Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Rig in a Parlour: The Freedom Convoy and the Law of Private Nuisance

Matter Commented On: Li v Barber et al, Court File No CV-22-00088514-00CP

After more than a week of disruptive, and at times highly offensive, protesting in the nation’s capital, private law has been engaged. Specifically, residents of the inner downtown area applied to the Ontario Superior Court for injunctive relief (essentially, a temporary ban on certain conduct) and for damages under the tort of private nuisance. This post discusses the basic elements and principles of private nuisance as they relate to the present context (we do not comment on procedural aspects – e.g., certification of the proceeding as a class action). Our preliminary assessment is that the prospects for success on the question of private nuisance are very good. Early indications from the Court are consistent with this assessment, as Justice Hugh McLean of the Ontario Superior Court granted an interim injunction on Monday (copy of the Court order here). In doing so, Justice McLean indicated that the right of citizens to peace and quiet was the overriding right (see this detailed thread on Twitter summarizing the Court proceedings). Continue reading →