Author Archives: Drew Yewchuk

About Drew Yewchuk

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.

An Example of How Government Delays Access to Information Requests: Pretending to not Understand Them

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decision Commented On: Re Health, 2022 CanLII 51351 (AB OIPC) (Order F2022-25)

PDF Version: An Example of How Government Delays Access to Information Requests: Pretending to not Understand Them

Re Health, Order F2022-25 is a decision from an adjudicator at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) ordering Alberta Health to respond to an access request that Alberta Health had wrongly refused to process. The conduct of Alberta Health described in the decision is a good illustration of the strategies used by public bodies in Alberta to defeat access requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP) Continue reading →

Procedural Fairness When Challenging Timeline Extensions for Freedom of Information Requests

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decision Commented On: Re Energy, Order F2022-20, 2022 CanLII 29391 (AB OIPC)

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

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) Order F2022-20 shows how easy it is for public bodies to drag the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP) process out to prevent timely transparency, even where there is little or no plausible justification for the public body to withhold records.

F2022-20 relates to the same FOIP request as Blades v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 ABQB 725 (CanLII) (Blades), a decision I wrote about here. The request in question is an attempt to get government records explaining the Alberta government’s decision to revoke the 1976 Coal Development Policy for Alberta. Continue reading →

Abandonment and Reclamation Obligations, Builders Liens, and Municipal Taxes in Oil and Gas Bankruptcy Proceedings

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Abandonment and Reclamation Obligations, Builders Liens, and Municipal Taxes in Oil and Gas Bankruptcy Proceedings

Cases Commented On: Manitok Energy Inc (Re), 2022 ABCA 117 (CanLII)

Re Manitok Energy Inc, 2022 ABCA 117 (CanLII) (Manitok) was released March 30, 2022. It relates to the bankruptcy of an Alberta oil and gas corporation and interprets the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (often referred to as Redwater, after the bankrupt company involved). The specific question before the Court of Appeal in Manitok was:

Whether end of life obligations associated with the abandonment and reclamation of unsold oil and gas properties must be satisfied by the Receiver from Manitok’s estate in preference to satisfying what may otherwise be first-ranking builders’ lien claims based on services provided by the lien claimants before the receivership date. (Manitok at para 1) Continue reading →

Is The Canadian Energy Centre A Department, Branch or Office of the Government of Alberta?

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Is The Canadian Energy Centre A Department, Branch or Office of the Government of Alberta?

Decision Commented On: Re Canadian Energy Centre Ltd, Order F2022-16 (AB OIPC)

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) released a Re Canadian Energy Centre Ltd, Order F2022-16 finding that the Canadian Energy Centre (CEC), which is also known as the ‘War Room’, is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP). This is the outcome the Alberta government intended when creating the CEC, and Alberta Energy participated in the hearing to argue the CEC was not subject to FOIP. Despite that, my view is that the OIPC adjudicator made errors in interpreting FOIP and their conclusion is wrong. The CEC is a ‘public body’ subject to FOIP. Continue reading →

The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 3: The Second Application for Summary Dismissal Should Never Have Been Heard

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 3: The Second Application for Summary Dismissal Should Never Have Been Heard

Case Commented On: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2022 ABCA 111

This is part 3 of a series on the litigation resulting from the Bankruptcy of Sequoia Resources Corp. (Sequoia). Part 1 covered the first application to strike and the first application to intervene. Part 2 covered a costs decision against the Trustee and the first appeal decision.

This third part covers some of the interlocutory decisions, the Court of Appeal’s decision on the second summary dismissal decision, and explains how the initial asset transfer seems to have passed regulatory review. Continue reading →