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, Sharon Mascher, and Nigel Bankes
PDF Version: Top Ten Environmental Law Stories: Canadian Edition
This last year was an important one for environmental law and policy, both in Canada and globally. In this post we highlight ten of the most significant developments. Many of these figure among the usual suspects included in top-ten lists, but we’ve included some less obvious ones as well.
By: Martin Olszynski and Meinhard Doelle
Case Commented On: Ontario Power Generation Inc. v Greenpeace Canada et al, 2015 FCA 186
In this decision, a majority of the Federal Court of Appeal (Justices Trudel and Ryer) overturned a ruling of the Federal Court (Justice Russell) finding that the environmental assessment of Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) Darlington New Nuclear project conducted by a Joint Review Panel failed to comply with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, SC 1992 c 37 (since replaced with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 SC 2012 c 19). Justice Russell found gaps in the Panel’s assessment (specifically with respect to hazardous substances emissions, spent nuclear fuel, and a failure to consider the effects of a severe ‘common cause’ accident) that in his view were unreasonable in light of the purpose and scheme of the Act. The majority of the Federal Court of Appeal, on the other hand, endorsed a more formal approach to judicial review in this context, holding that reasonableness was a “low threshold” (at para 151) such that a panel need only give “some consideration” to a project’s environmental effects (at para 130) to be reasonable; it is only where a panel “gives no consideration at all” that its assessment will be deemed unreasonable (at para 130). Justice Rennie dissented, agreeing with Justice Russell with respect to hazardous substances emissions (at paras 48 – 50) and endorsing the latter’s characterization of CEAA as a two-step decision-making process that is intended to be evidence-based and democratically accountable (at para 52). Because of its potential to seriously undermine the effectiveness of the federal environmental assessment regime, this post focuses on the majority’s approach to reasonableness review in this context. Both of us previously commented on Justice Russell’s decision in separate blog posts (see here and here), and one of us wrote up a full case comment on it (forthcoming in the Dalhousie Law Journal).
By: Martin Olszynski
PDF Version: 5 Things I learned about Canada’s New Fish Habitat Protection Laws
Case Commented On: Section 35 of the Fisheries Act, RSC 1985 c F-14, as amended by the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, SC 2012, c 19
This is a follow-up post to an earlier blog from May in which Alex Grigg and I described a research project looking into the new “fisheries protection” regime under the amended Fisheries Act. Interested readers are referred to that post for background. Briefly, in order to gain insight into the difference between the previous habitat protection regime and the new fisheries protection regime, we analyzed the primary permitting vehicle in this context, the Fisheries Act section 35 authorization (previously authorizing harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, now authorizing the death of fish and the permanent alteration or destruction of fish habitat). One hundred and eighty four authorizations (just over 1600 pages worth) issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ two largest regions (Pacific and Central & Arctic) over a six-month period for the years 2012, 2013, and 2014 were analyzed, with 2014 being the first year under the new regime. In order to help frame the analysis and provide additional baseline information, twelve statutorily required annual reports to Parliament on the administration and enforcement of the habitat/fisheries protection provisions were also analyzed (2001/02 – 2013/14). In this post, I discuss five of the most significant findings from this analysis. The full paper (from which this post borrows liberally) is available here.
By: Martin Olszynski and Alex Grigg
PDF Version: Assessing Canada’s Habitat/Fisheries Protection Regime: A Near Total Abdication of Responsibility?
Legislation Commented On: Section 35 of the Fisheries Act, RSC 1985 c F-14, as amended by the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act SC 2012, c 19
Roughly three years ago (on June 29, 2012), Bill C-38, the omnibus budget bill also known as the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, received royal assent. As most ABlawg readers will surely know, Bill C-38 fundamentally changed some of Canada’s most important environmental laws. Among these were changes to the Fisheries Act and a new regime for the protection of fish habitat in particular. Section 35 of the Act, which used to prohibit any work or undertaking that resulted in the “harmful alteration or disruption, or the destruction” (HADD) of fish habitat, was amended to prohibit works, undertakings and activities that result in “serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery,” serious harm being defined as “the death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of, fish habitat” (DPAD). At the time of Bill C-38’s passage, this wording was widely panned as vague, confusing and bound to reduce the scope of protection for fish habitat (see here, here, here, here and our own professor emeritus Arlene Kwasniak here). This summer – and with a view towards a Fisheries Act panel at the Journal of Environmental Law and Practice’s 5th conference in Kananaskis in June – we are conducting research to assess the merits of this new regime. This blog sets out our approach and some preliminary findings. Long story short, it appears that the federal government has all but abdicated its role in protecting fish habitat in Canada.
By: Martin Olszynski
PDF Version: Is the Federal Government Intent on Hurrying Along the ‘Sixth Extinction’?
Legislation Commented On: Species At Risk Act, SC 2002 c 29
Sitting on a shelf in my office – unread since roughly this time last year – is Elizabeth Kolbert’s book The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. Ms Kolbert’s book recently won the Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction, having been described by its judges as “an exploration of nature that forces readers to consider the threat posed by human behaviour to a world of astonishing diversity.” Also sitting on my computer’s desktop – unfinished since this past December – has been a blog post about the federal government’s failure to list species under the Species At Risk Act (SARA) since 2011, notwithstanding the fact the scientific body responsible for recommending listing, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), has made 67 such recommendations since that time (all of which was reported in the Globe and Mail here; after this story broke three bat species were listed, but to my knowledge the government hasn’t changed its basic position, as further discussed below). My plan was to read Ms. Kolbert’s book and use it to frame a post describing yet another example of the federal government’s total disregard for the rule of law when it comes to species at risk (see e.g. here). But I am already late to the party and, having just blogged about environmental-law-as-process and its implications for the environment, it seems to me that such a post makes for a reasonable Exhibit A. The fact that I have a huge pile of marking sitting in front of me right now is also not irrelevant.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén