Author: Drew Yewchuk Page 10 of 19

B.A. (UAlberta) J.D. (UCalgary) LLM (U.B.C.) Drew was a full-time staff lawyer with the University of Calgary's Public Interest Law Clinic from 2018-2022. He is now an PhD student at the Peter A. Allard School of Law. His research focuses on administrative secrecy, access to information law, species at risk, resource law, and environmental liabilities.

Event Commented On: Access to Justice Week 2021

The Canadian Bar Association’s annual Access to Justice Week in Alberta ran from October 25-31, 2021. This post is the annual look back at the past year of access to justice posts on ABlawg. The blog focuses on important cases that changed the law rather than programs that provided access to justice for underserved communities – the access to justice blog covers several of those initiatives, and some other changes not covered on ABlawg.

Another Year Gone Under the Mine Financial Security Program

By Drew Yewchuk

On October 19, 2021

In Energy, Environmental

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Another Year Gone Under the Mine Financial Security Program

Legislation Commented On: Annual Mine Financial Security Program Submissions, 2021 Submissions for 2020 Reporting Year

In a post back in May 2021, I complained about a change to Alberta’s Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). This is a follow-up post in response to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) posting the annual submissions under the program on September 30, 2021. Note that each annual submission is for the September of the previous year, so the 2021 report is relevant to the situation in September 2020.

The MFSP is Alberta’s system for ensuring that companies pay for the reclamation and remediation of their mines, both oilsands and coal (but not conventional oil and gas, which is handled by a different liability management system that also does not work properly). In short, the MFSP allows companies to use an asset safety factor against their estimated future environmental liabilities, such that if a mine’s resource assets are worth more than three times the total anticipated reclamation costs (3:1), nothing beyond an initial (and wholly inadequate) ‘base deposit’ is required, provided also that the planned reclamation is conducted as scheduled, and the mine has more than 15 years of reserves remaining. Companies may also choose to skip those calculations and pay full security based on an estimate of the total cost of clean-up.

Procedural Fairness When Challenging Timeline Extensions for Freedom of Information Requests

By Drew Yewchuk

On September 27, 2021

In Administrative Law

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Procedural Fairness When Challenging Timeline Extensions for Freedom of Information Requests

Decision Commented On: Blades v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 ABQB 725 (CanLII)

The recent decision in Blades v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 ABQB 725 (CanLII) (Blades) relates to two issues ABlawg has previously covered. First, the challenges of getting government records in a timely manner using the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP). Prior posts on FOIP have discussed the challenges with the information request process, and the challenges presented by the review process at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Second, the Alberta government’s decision to revoke the 1976 Coal Development Policy for Alberta. See the list of coal-related ABlawg posts listed at the top of this post. Looking past those specifics, Blades is a judicial review decision about an administrative body’s obligation of procedural fairness and the right to be heard by the administrative decision-maker.

Alberta’s Plan for Climate Resilience is Government Propaganda

By Drew Yewchuk

On September 8, 2021

In Climate Change, Energy

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Alberta’s Plan for Climate Resilience is Government Propaganda

Matter Commented On: The Canadian Energy Centre’s Request for Proposal for a Creative and Production Agency

After the 2019 Alberta election, the new government replaced the previous Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation, Alta Reg 255/2017 with the new Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation, Alta Reg 133/2019 (TIER). Both were regulations under the Emissions Management and Climate Resilience Act, SA 2003, c E-7.8. For the story of the development of TIER, refer to this post from Nigel Bankes.

TIER changed the name of the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund to the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Fund (TIER Fund). The fund accumulates money from emitters who fail to meet their emission targets. The fund can only be used for the purposes in section 10 (3)-(4.2) of the Act:

The AER’s Mandatory Closure Spend Targets are Deficient

By Drew Yewchuk

On July 27, 2021

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The AER’s Mandatory Closure Targets are Deficient

Legislation Commented On: AER Bulletin 2021-23 ‘Mandatory Closure Spend Targets’

This is a follow up post to my June 24, 2021 post on the changes the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is making to the Liability Management Framework and specifically Draft Directive XXX: Licensee Life-Cycle Management (Draft Directive) meant to replace the current Directive 006 once finalized. Readers are encouraged to check that post for background context.

Author: Drew Yewchuk Page 10 of 19

The 2020/2021 Year in Access to Justice on ABlawg

Another Year Gone Under the Mine Financial Security Program

Procedural Fairness When Challenging Timeline Extensions for Freedom of Information Requests

Alberta’s Plan for Climate Resilience is Government Propaganda

The AER’s Mandatory Closure Spend Targets are Deficient