Author: Martin Olszynski Page 1 of 13

B.Sc. in Biology (Saskatchewan), LL.B. (Saskatchewan), LL.M. Specialization in Environmental Law (University of California at Berkeley).
Assistant Professor.
Please click here for more information.

The Mature Asset Strategy for Alberta’s Oil and Gas Closure Liability Crisis: Where there is Smoke [and Mirrors], there is Fire

By Martin Olszynski

On September 30, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Martin Olszynski, Drew Yewchuk, and Shaun Fluker

Matter Commented On: Alberta’s Mature Asset Strategy: What we Heard and Recommendations Report, April 3, 2025

PDF Version: The Mature Asset Strategy for Alberta’s Oil and Gas Closure Liability Crisis: Where there is Smoke [and Mirrors], there is Fire

The Alberta government is poised yet again to change its policy direction for addressing the crisis of unfunded closure liabilities in the conventional oil and gas sector. The current yet-to-be-fully-implemented Liability Management Framework (LMF) was announced – to considerable fanfare – just five years ago, in what seemed like an exchange for $1 billion in federal COVID funding to be applied towards closure work on inactive and orphaned facilities. Now that this federal money has been spent (although $137 million was curiously not spent and had to be returned), and Alberta’s inactive well inventory appears to once again be growing, it is apparently time to abandon the LMF for a ‘new’ policy direction that, if nothing else, will once again delay actually dealing with the problem: enter the Mature Asset Strategy (MAS).

A Radical Departure: Remarks on Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

By Martin Olszynski

On June 19, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Indigenous, Law Reform

By: Martin Olszynski

Matter Commented On: Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

PDF Version: A Radical Departure: Remarks on Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

On Tuesday, June 17^th, 2025, I had the opportunity to appear before the Senate in the context of its study of Bill C-5, Part II of which contains the Building Canada Act. Professor David Wright and I provided an initial analysis of this part of Bill C-5 shortly after it was tabled. As is my regular practice, this post includes my prepared remarks, which expand on some of that earlier analysis. I have also included hyperlinks where useful. In our initial post, Professor Wright asked whether Bill C-5 will allow Canada to ‘move fast and make things’ or ‘move fast and break things’? While it is still too early to answer that question from a project review perspective (the prospects, however, appear increasingly dim), it is now clear that as drafted Bill C-5 breaks fundamental democratic norms, at the least, and that our democracy and the rule of law will be diminished for it.

A Landmark Decision in Canadian Charter-based Climate Litigation: Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762

By Martin Olszynski

On October 31, 2024

In Climate Change, Constitutional

By: Martin Olszynski, Jennifer Koshan, Nigel Bankes, and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case commented on: Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762 (CanLII)

PDF Version: A Landmark Decision in Canadian Charter-based Climate Litigation: Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762 (CanLII). ABlawg readers will know that this is one of three Charter-based climate lawsuits currently making their way through Canadian courts. The other two are La Rose v Canada, 2023 FCA 241 (CanLII), which involves a challenge to the federal government’s climate policies, and Dykstra et al v Saskatchewan Power Corporation, which involves a challenge to the Saskatchewan government’s and SaskPower’s decisions to expand gas-fired electricity generation (see our previous post on La Rose here). In this post, we contrast the trial and appellate reasons in Mathur (and where relevant, in La Rose FCA) and offer our commentary on several key issues in this litigation.

Inextricably Linked: Climate Policy and the Oil and Gas Sector’s Closure Liabilities

By Martin Olszynski

On February 21, 2024

In Energy, Environmental, Oil & Gas

By: Martin Olszynski

Matter Commented On: Study on Emerging Issues Related to the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources’ Mandate: Climate Change – Canadian Oil & Gas Industry

PDF Version: Inextricably Linked: Climate Policy and the Oil and Gas Sector’s Closure Liabilities

On February 15, 2024, I appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources’ (ENEV) in the context of its study into emerging issues related to its mandate. As has been my practice in the past (see here and here), what follows are my prepared remarks, modified only for formatting purposes and to include hyperlinks to supporting resources where relevant. A recording of the hearing is available here; a hearing transcript should also be available upon translation.

Triviality and Significance of Federal Environmental Effects after Reference re: Impact Assessment Act

By Martin Olszynski

On January 15, 2024

In Energy, Environmental, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Martin Olszynski

Decision Commented On: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Triviality and Significance of Federal Environmental Effects after Reference re: Impact Assessment Act

This is the sixth ABlawg post regarding the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent opinion in Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Reference) (see the first five posts here). In this post, I address the thorny issue of thresholds, i.e., the level or point at which an effect becomes material or relevant under the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (IAA). Since the opinion’s release last fall, I have read and heard concerns that the majority has imposed some kind of minimum threshold regarding the magnitude of effects required to trigger federal jurisdiction, or that the federal government could only refuse to deem such effects to be in the public interest if they are significant (see here for a thoughtful commentary on the practical problems with such an approach). As noted by Justices Andromache Karakatsanis and Mahmud Jamal in their dissent, however, it has actually long been an interpretive rule – since the Supreme Court of Canada’s environmental law decision in Ontario v Canadian Pacific Ltd, 1995 CanLII 112 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 1031 (Canadian Pacific) – that broadly worded environmental legislation is to be interpreted in a manner that does not capture trivial, or de minimis, impacts (IAA Reference at para 278). Importantly, however, and as I discussed almost a decade ago in “Ancient Maxim, Modern Problems: De Minimis, Cumulative Environmental Effects and Risk-Based Regulation” (2015) 40-2 Queen’s Law Journal 705, 2015 CanLIIDocs 5272, (“Ancient Maxim, Modern Problems”), non-triviality is a very low bar; between trivial and significant lies a wide spectrum of impacts, which at the very least includes low and moderate impacts. Trivial or de minimis impacts are essentially only those impacts that a regulatory regime could systematically ignore while still obtaining its objectives – they are treated the same as no impacts whatsoever.