Author Archives: Nigel Bankes

About Nigel Bankes

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.

Premier Smith Converts a Legal Pause on Renewable Energy Projects Into a De Facto Moratorium of Uncertain Duration

By: Nigel Bankes and Martin Olszynski

Matter Commented On: Policy Guidance to the Alberta Utilities Commission, February 28, 2024

PDF Version: Premier Smith Converts a Legal Pause on Renewable Energy Projects Into a De Facto Moratorium of Uncertain Duration

In August 2023, the Government of Alberta (GoA) stunned most commentators and the renewable energy sector in Alberta by announcing that it would be instructing the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) to withhold approval of all new renewable energy projects in the province for seven months. We commented on that announcement here: “An Incredibly Ill-Advised and Unnecessary Decision”. Continue reading →

What Did the Court Mean When It Said that UNDRIP “has been incorporated into the country’s positive law”? Appellate Guidance or Rhetorical Flourish?

By: Nigel Bankes and Robert Hamilton

Case commented on: Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2024 SCC 5 (CanLII).

PDF Version: What Did the Court Mean When It Said that UNDRIP “has been incorporated into the country’s positive law”? Appellate Guidance or Rhetorical Flourish?

In its recent reference opinion on the validity of an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, SC 2019, c 24 (the FNIM Act), the Supreme Court went out of its way to comment on the legal significance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SC 2021, c 14 (the federal UNDRIP Act). The Court did so notwithstanding that legal questions relating to the federal UNDRIP Act were not directly before it, and notwithstanding its own observations in the Reference to the effect that “[t]he task that falls to the Court in the context of a reference invites caution …” (at para 111). That it chose to comment at such length is even more remarkable when one reflects on how reticent the Court seems to have been to comment on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP or Declaration), or international human rights law more generally, in other cases over the last two decades dealing with Indigenous rights. Continue reading →

Taking Stock of The Grassy Mountain Litigation as of February 2024

By: Nigel Bankes

Cases commented on: (1) Benga Mining Limited v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2022 ABCA 30 (CanLII), (January 8, 2022); (2) Benga Mining Limited v Alberta Energy Regulator, et al, 2022 CanLII 88683 (SCC), (September 29, 2022); (3) Stoney Nakoda Nations v His Majesty the King In Right of Alberta As Represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations (Aboriginal Consultation Office), 2023 ABKB 700 (CanLII), (December 4, 2023); and (4) Benga Mining Limited v Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2024 FC 231 (CanLII), (February 12, 2024).

PDF Version: Taking Stock of The Grassy Mountain Litigation as of February 2024

This post is a public service announcement to update all of those concerned about coal mining in Alberta, and specifically for those concerned about the status of the rejected Grassy Mountain coal project and ongoing litigation concerning that project. This is old territory for ABlawg. Readers will recall that we launched an extended coal law and policy series in 2021 when the Minister of Energy first revoked the Lougheed coal development policy of 1976. Continue reading →

Utility Law Meets Net Zero

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions Commented on: Ontario Energy Board, “Decision and Order, EB-2022-0200, Enbridge Gas Inc, Application for 2024 Rates – Phase 1”, December 21, 2023 [Enbridge Decision]; British Columbia Utilities Commission, “FortisBC Energy Inc. Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Okanagan Capacity Upgrade Project”, Decision and Order G-361-23, December 22, 2023 [Fortis Decision].

PDF Version: Utility Law Meets Net Zero

Utility connections for gas, electricity, and water tend to be long-lived, capital-intensive projects that typically depreciate over the expected life of the asset. At the same time, depreciation rates should also reflect the risk that an asset may be abandoned or cease to be “used and useful” before the end of its physical life. To give an easy (non-climate) example, suppose that a mine seeks an electrical utility connection.  The dedicated distribution line that the mine requires might be expected to have a useful life of 40 years, but the mine itself only has proven reserves for a twenty-year life. If the local utility provides service, it will seek approval to depreciate that line over a maximum of a 20-year period. If it were to use a 40-year period and the mine shut down as expected when the ore body was exhausted after 20 years, the utility would have a stranded asset; that is to say it would have an asset that had lost its utility before the end of its physical life and for which the utility could not obtain a return of the undepreciated cost of the asset (50%). Continue reading →

What Does La Rose Tell Us About Climate Change Litigation in Canada?

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

Case Commented On: La Rose v Canada, 2023 FCA 241 (CanLII)

PDF Version: What Does La Rose Tell Us About Climate Change Litigation in Canada?

The last decade has seen an explosion of domestic climate change litigation around the world and an equally rich body of academic literature examining the case law from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law maintains an excellent data base covering these developments. Important cases in other jurisdictions include the Urgenda decision (Urgenda v Netherlands (2019)) and Shell decision (Milieudefensie et al v Shell (2021)) in the Netherlands, and the 2021 decision of the German constitutional court (Neubauer et al v Germany). Australian environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) have been particularly active in bringing climate change issues before the courts, especially in the context of proposed natural gas and coal projects, most famously in the Sharma case (Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560, appeal allowed, [2022] FCAFC 35). Continue reading →