Author: Nigel Bankes Page 1 of 88

Nigel Bankes is emeritus professor of law at the University of Calgary. Prior to his retirement in June 2021 Nigel held the chair in natural resources law in the Faculty of Law.

Matters Commented On: (1) Annual Report of the Permanent Engineering Board (PEB) to the Governments of the United States and Canada under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty for the period of October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2024, May 16, 2025, and (2) Flood Risk Operating Plan (FROP) for the Columbia River Treaty, June 26, 2025

PDF Version: Continuing Implementation of Revisions to the Columbia River Treaty

The Columbia River Treaty (CRT) entered into force in September 1964. While the CRT has no expiry date, certain terms of the CRT, specifically the flood control provisions of the treaty, were scheduled to change automatically on the treaty’s sixtieth anniversary (September 16, 2024) in a way that would provide the United States far less certainty as to future upstream flood control operations in Canada. For this, and a number of other reasons, the US and Canada were motivated to modernize the CRT and to that end, and as highlighted in previous posts on ABlawg, the governments of Canada and the United States entered into a non-binding agreement in principle (AiP) in July 2024 outlining proposed changes to the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) (see posts on the AiP here and here).

What Are the Implications of the International Court’s Climate Change Advisory Opinion for Provinces?

By Nigel Bankes

On January 26, 2026

In Climate Change, Environmental, International Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Obligations of States In Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, July 23, 2025

PDF Version: What Are the Implications of the International Court’s Climate Change Advisory Opinion for Provinces?

ABlawg has already published posts on constitutional climate change litigation in Canada (the La Rose case, here) as well as two posts on the important unanimous Advisory Opinion (AO) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Climate Change, here and here. This post assesses the implications of the AO for a province within the Confederation of Canada, specifically a province like Alberta which is a significant producer of carbon fuels and a significant emitter of greenhouse gases: see ECCC, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2025).

A Final Lump of Coal for 2025

By Nigel Bankes

On December 23, 2025

In Energy, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes and Drew Yewchuk

Matters Commented On: Notice of Termination of the federal environmental assessment for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project, December 19, 2025 and Bill 14, Justice Statutes Amendment Act, and Corb Lund’s no coal citizen initiative petition.

PDF Version: A Final Lump of Coal for 2025

This is our final coal update post of the year. We don’t have a court decision to post about, but there have been two noteworthy developments on coal. First, the Notice of Termination of the federal environmental assessment for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project, and second, Corb Lund’s no coal citizen initiative petition.

Gitxaala and the Conundrum of UNDRIP Implementing Legislation: The Sky Has Not Fallen In

By Nigel Bankes

On December 22, 2025

In Indigenous, International Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Gitxaala and the Conundrum of UNDRIP Implementing Legislation: The Sky Has Not Fallen In

This case, which commenced as a judicial review application, involved a challenge to the implementation and/or constitutional validity of British Columbia’s hard rock mineral regime under the terms of the Mineral Tenure Act, RSBC 1996, c 292 (MTA). The petitioners also claimed that the MTA regime was not consistent with the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP or UN Declaration) as required by section 3 of British Columbia’s “implementing” legislation, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SBC 2019, c 44 (DRIPA). This post focuses on that aspect of the case which was the only live matter by the time the case got to the Court of Appeal. A majority of that Court found in favour of the petitioners while the dissent concluded that the matter was not justiciable.

Mine 14: It’s Worse Than We Thought

By Nigel Bankes

On November 6, 2025

In Access to Information, Administrative Law, Environmental

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: Responsive Records to Access to Information Requests re Mine 14 Decision-Making

PDF Version: Mine 14: It’s Worse Than We Thought

An earlier ABlawg post described the manner in which Rob Morgan, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) unlawfully intervened in the Mine 14 adjudicative process then under the conduct of AER Hearing Commissioners. At the time we suggested that the CEO’s decision might have been the result of political pressure brought to bear on Mr. Morgan. The access to information requests discussed in this post strengthen that supposition and also provide evidence of improper communication between Mr. Morgan (and others at the AER) with Vitor Marciano the Chief of Staff of Brian Jean, Minister of Energy and Minerals.