Niall Fink

Author: Niall Fink

Niall Fink is a student and research assistant at the University of Calgary, where he is completing his Juris Doctor degree. Niall holds a Bachelor and a Masters degree in English from the University of Alberta. Niall will be articling at Bennett Jones’ Calgary office beginning in summer of 2021.

By: Aimee Huntington, Niall Fink & Peter Shyba

PDF Version: Stakeholders Expected Consultation on the Coal Policy Rescission: Was There a Legal Duty?

Cases Commented On: Blades et al v Alberta; TransAlta Generation Partnership v Regina, 2021 ABQB 37 (CanLII)

This is the sixth ABlawg post on Alberta Energy’s decision to rescind the 1976 Coal Development Policy for Alberta (the “Coal Policy”) in May of 2020 (the “Rescission”). Much has happened since May. At the time of writing, Energy Minister Sonya Savage has temporarily reinstated the Coal Policy with a commitment to “engage with Albertans in the first half of 2021 about the long-term approach to coal development in Alberta.” A Coal Policy Committee has been established, although details on public consultation remain unclear. It is also unclear whether the reinstatement renders moot the case of Blades et al v Alberta, an application for judicial review by two cattle ranchers initiated in July of 2020 (the “Blades Application”). Finally, it is still unclear how the reinstatement will affect approvals for coal exploration granted between rescission and reinstatement (on this point, see Nigel Bankes’ previous post). What is clear is that the government’s duty to consult stakeholders on changes to the Coal Policy will remain contentious in the foreseeable future.

The Blades Application highlighted multiple potential sources of an obligation to consult stakeholders, including provisions in the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c A-26.8 (ALSA), the common law, and constitutional claims raised by Indigenous intervenors. This post considers one particular source for this obligation: the legitimate expectations of stakeholders in the South Saskatchewan Region. We do so in light of the recent treatment of the doctrine of legitimate expectations in TransAlta Generation Partnership v Regina, 2021 ABQB 37 (CanLII).

By: Niall Fink and David V. Wright

PDF Version: Climate Change in Federal Impact Assessment: An Early Look at Two Energy Projects

Documents Commented On: Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28 s 1; Environment and Climate Change Canada, Final Strategic Assessment on Climate Change (Gatineau: ECCC, 2020)

One year ago, the new Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28 s 1 (IAA) came into force. With project reviews now proceeding under the IAA, this is an opportune time to reflect on implementation of the new regime so far. This post focuses on one specific dimension: climate change. For the first time since the inception of federal environmental assessment, Canada’s federal project-level assessment statute explicitly requires decision-makers to consider a project’s effects on Canada’s ability to meet its climate change commitments (ss 22(1)(i) and 63(e)). The year has seen this requirement fleshed out through guidance published in the form of the Strategic Assessment of Climate Change (SACC) (see commentary by Professor Wright). This post examines how the new regime’s climate change requirements and guidance have been implemented in two major project-level assessments currently underway: the Suncor Base Mine Extension Project (Suncor Project) and the Gazoduq Project.

We examine the proponents’ submissions and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s (the Agency) process, and identify areas of uncertainty and concern. Overall, we find that the Agency has given proponents significant latitude to sidestep information requirements in preliminary stages of the assessment process. We also find early signals that the impact statement phase will not fully address concerns regarding downstream emissions nor ambiguity in determining a project’s impact on Canada’s ability to reduce emissions. While much remains to be seen in subsequent assessment stages, these weaknesses risk that implementation of the IAA becomes yet another instance of the “implementation gap” that has plagued environmental law for decades (see this article by law professor Dan Farber).