Author: Nigel Bankes Page 1 of 87

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.

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.

Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Project and Other Coal Matters: Update 4, October 2025

By Nigel Bankes

On October 23, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Responsible Energy Development Act

By: Nigel Bankes & Drew Yewchuk

Cases and Decisions Commented On: Northback Holdings Corporation v. Alberta Energy and Joint Review Panel For the Grassy Mountain Coal Project acting in its capacity as the Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 CanLII 99179 (SCC) and Northback Holdings Corporation v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2025 FCA 31 (CanLII).

PDF Version: Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Project and Other Coal Matters: Update 4, October 2025

In addition to ABlawg’s coal law and policy series and the Coal Law and Policy ebook, we have provided occasional posts updating readers on the status of the Grassy Mountain Coal project and the related litigation. As the title of the post suggests, this is the fourth update following earlier updates in February 2024, August 2024, and June 2025.

Benga, now known as Northback, first applied for permits for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project in May 2015 (GM.1). A Joint Review Panel (JRP) consisting of federal and provincial regulators held a hearing from October 2020 to January 2021. The JRP report in June 2021 denied provincial permits for the project and in August 2021, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change denied federal permits for the project. Recognizing that the project requires both federal and provincial permits, Northback brought litigation relating to the provincial permits in Alberta courts and litigation relating to the federal permits in federal courts in its efforts to get the project approved. In order to revisit the JRP report and decision and revive GM.1, Northback needed to succeed with its litigation in both the Alberta courts and the federal courts. The most recent developments confirm that all of Northback’s attacks on the provincial decision-making have failed and GM.1 is dead and buried. While there is some outstanding litigation in the federal courts relating to GM.1, even if Northback or the First Nation applicants are successful, the remaining litigation cannot obtain the permits necessary for GM.1 to proceed.