Author: Martin Olszynski Page 11 of 18

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.

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Dunsmuir is Dead – Long Live Dunsmuir! An Argument for a Presumption of Correctness

Case Commented On: Garneau Community League v Edmonton (City), 2017 ABCA 374 (CanLII)

Garneau is the latest judicial plea to the Supreme Court of Canada to do something about the standard of review – three judges, three judgments, all concurring in the result but each getting there somewhat differently. The case involves Alberta’s Municipal Governments Act, RSA 2000 c M-26, including statutory rights of appeal that are similar to those recently considered by the Supreme Court (and only slightly less recently considered by the Alberta Court of Appeal) in Edmonton (City) v Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd., 2016 SCC 47 (CanLII). In this post, I highlight Justice Watson’s and Slatter’s concerns about the standard of review framework as set out in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (CanLII) and its progeny. Before doing so, however, I first provide a primer on the Dunsmuir framework wherein I flag some of my own concerns. Drawing on these two parts, I then propose two concrete changes to the Dunsmuir framework that in my view would render it more coherent and stable, both doctrinally and practically.

In the Growing Wave of Climate Litigation, Could the Automobile Industry be Next?

By Martin Olszynski

On October 13, 2017

In Climate Change, Torts

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: In the Growing Wave of Climate Litigation, Could the Automobile Industry be Next?

Litigation Commented On: County of San Mateo v Chevron Corp., Docket number(s): 3:17-cv-04929-MEJ; County of Marin v Chevron Corp., Docket number(s): 3:17-cv-04935; City of Imperial Beach v Chevron Corp., Docket number(s): 4:17-cv-04934; People of State of California v BP p.l.c., No CGC-17-561370 (Cal Super Ct, filed Sept 19, 2017); People of State of California v BP p.l.c., No RG17875889 (Cal Super Ct, filed Sept 19, 2017)

Over the course of the summer, five California municipalities (San Mateo County, Marin County, and the City of Imperial Beach as a first group, San Francisco and Oakland as a second) filed statements of claim against many of the world’s largest oil and gas companies – including Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, and Canada’s own Encana – claiming that these companies should be liable for the current and future costs incurred by these municipalities as a result of climate change, and especially those associated with rising sea levels. In this post, I consider whether the world’s top automobile manufacturers could be next in the defendant line. I’ve been thinking about automobile manufacturers’ potential liability for a while now, having first considered the issue in a recent article co-authored with Professors Sharon Mascher and Meinhard Doelle (which we blogged about here). This post’s focus on car manufacturers has been motivated by two separate but related developments in particular: (i) the automobile manufacturers’ December 2016 letter to Scott Pruitt, the then-new head of the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requesting that he reconsider the “strict” fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks established by the Obama administration; and (ii) the industry’s response to a potential zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate currently being considered here in Canada, and especially the industry’s suggestion that it “can’t control consumer tastes”.

Announcing a Summer Discussion Series on Recent Developments in Energy and Environmental Law

By Martin Olszynski

On June 22, 2017

In Energy, Environmental

By: Martin Olszynski and Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Announcing a Summer Discussion Series on Recent Developments in Energy and Environmental Law

Event Commented On: 2017 Energy & Environmental Law Summer Discussion Series

The past year has been relatively busy from a legislative and policy reform perspective, especially with respect to Canadian energy and environmental law. At the federal level, all of the expert panels and parliamentary committees tasked by the current Liberal government with reviewing the Harper-era changes to Canada’s energy and environmental law regime have now delivered their reports: Forward, Together: Enabling Canada’s Clean, Safe and Secure Energy Future (regarding the National Energy Board); Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada (regarding federal environmental assessment processes); Review of changes made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act: enhancing the protection of fish and fish habitat and the management of Canadian fisheries; and A Study of the Navigation Protection Act. There has also been important litigation at the provincial level, especially the Alberta Court of Appeal’s recent decision in the Redwater litigation: Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124 (CanLII).

While most of these developments have been discussed in this forum (see e.g. posts by Kwasniak, Fluker and Yewchuk, Olszynski, and Mascher with respect to environmental assessment and Bankes on the NEB report and Redwater), the Faculty and the Canadian Institute of Resources Law have decided that it would also be interesting to host a series of panel discussions over the summer to further analyze the issues.

Can Federal Legislative Jurisdiction Support a Broad, Sustainability-Based Impact Assessment?

By Martin Olszynski

On May 30, 2017

In Constitutional, Environmental

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Can Federal Legislative Jurisdiction Support a Broad, Sustainability-Based Impact Assessment?

Report Commented On: Expert Panel on the Review of Federal Environmental Assessment Processes, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada

This is the fourth in a series of ABlawg posts to consider the report of the Expert Panel on the Review of Federal Environmental Assessment Processes. Professor Arlene Kwasniak wrote the first post, wherein she summarized the main contours of the Expert Panel’s recommendations; Professor Shaun Fluker and Drew Yewchuk (JD 2017) tackled the ever-present challenges of discretion, transparency and accountability; and Professor Sharon Mascher recently discussed the Expert Panel’s recommendations with respect to triggering. In this post, I tackle an area of lingering doubt in the Panel’s report, namely the federal government’s jurisdiction to make project-related decisions following a broad, sustainability-based impact assessment. In my view and as further set out below, this doubt is misplaced. My analysis is admittedly somewhat novel but doesn’t break entirely new ground – a similar analysis was put forward in the commentary following the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport) 1992 CanLII 110 (SCC). Fundamental to my approach is the distinction between legislating with respect to a subject on the one hand, and subsequent decision-making pursuant to such legislation on the other.

Do Comparisons Between Tobacco and Climate Change Liability Withstand Scrutiny?

By Martin Olszynski

On April 26, 2017

In Climate Change, Environmental

By: Martin Olszynski, Sharon Mascher, and Meinhard Doelle

PDF Version: Do Comparisons Between Tobacco and Climate Change Liability Withstand Scrutiny?

Research Commented On: “From Smokes to Smokestacks: Lessons from Tobacco for the Future of Climate Change Liability” (2017) Geo Envtl L Rev (forthcoming)

A few years ago, the Canadian Press reported that environmental groups were “taking inspiration from the legal fight against tobacco to fire warning shots at major energy companies over their alleged role in funding climate change denial and blocking climate-friendly legislation.” The next day, an editorial in the Calgary Herald suggested that “the comparison doesn’t stand up to even cursory examination. One is a product that is always hazardous to human health when consumed, the other is a staple of the modern world.” Setting aside for a moment the fact that tobacco wasn’t always understood as hazardous to human health (back in the 1950s, almost one in every two Americans smoked, and cigarettes were ubiquitous in homes, places of work, universities, restaurants and bars), the past few years have seen an increasing number of comparisons made between the fossil-fuel industry’s potential liability for climate change and “Big Tobacco’s” liability for tobacco-related disease. Very few of these comparisons, however, have considered the legally relevant similarities and differences between these two contexts in detail. In our most recent paper, recently accepted for publication in the Georgetown Environmental Law Review, we set out to do just that.