Author: Nickie Nikolaou Page 2 of 5

Nickie Nikolaou, B.A. (Sask.), LL.B. (Alberta), LL.M. (Calgary).
Associate Professor. Member of the Alberta Bar.
Please click here for more information.

An Overview of Bill 2: Responsible Energy Development Act – What are the changes and What are the issues?*

By Nickie Nikolaou

On November 15, 2012

In Administrative Law, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas, Responsible Energy Development Act

PDF version: An Overview of Bill 2: Responsible Energy Development Act – What are the changes and What are the issues?*

Bill commented on: Bill 2, Responsible Energy Development Act, The Legislative Assembly of Alberta, 1^st Session, 28^th Legislature

On the heels of a sweeping overhaul to federal legislation to streamline federal approval processes for major energy projects, it is now Alberta’s turn. Bill 2 – the proposed Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA) proposes significant changes to the way oil and gas (and coal) projects are approved and regulated in the province. This post provides an overview of the Bill by highlighting the key changes that will be made to the current regulatory regime and the issues they raise.

The Proposed Single Energy Regulator: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Go from Here?

By Nickie Nikolaou

On July 19, 2012

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

PDF version: The Proposed Single Energy Regulator: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Go from Here?

Report commented on: Enhancing Assurance: Developing an integrated energy resources regulator, A Discussion Document, May 2011

It has been over a year since the latest proposal to move to a single regulator for energy development in Alberta was released (see Enhancing Assurance: Developing an integrated energy resources regulator, A Discussion Document, May 2011 (Discussion Document)). Many Albertans are likely asking what, if anything, has happened since then. This post outlines the proposal currently before government, updates readers on any progress made, and highlights the critical issues that ought to be addressed on a go-forward basis.

Tenant Cannot Unilaterally Withhold Rent Because of Unsanitary Living Conditions

By Nickie Nikolaou

On August 2, 2011

In Property

Case Considered: Herman v. Boardwalk Rental Communities, 2011 ABQB 394

Introduction

Questions often arise about whether a tenant can refuse to pay rent because of something the landlord has or has not done, or because of the condition of the premises. The typical short answer is “no.”.” Why? Because, generally-speaking, “rent is sacrosanct.” And so it was in the recent case of Herman v. Boardwalk Rental Communities, 2011 ABQB 394 (Herman), a case considering the situation of tenants in Alberta under the Residential Tenancies Act, RSA 2000, c 17.1 (RTA). Even in the face of allegations of dog/cat urine and fecal matter leaking onto/into his apartment, the Court held the tenant could not unilaterally withhold rent. The Court also held that procedure can be sacrosanct in landlord/tenant matters. The tenant’s failure to meet the procedural requirements for bringing his appeal resulted in it being dismissed, with costs being awarded to the landlord.

The Issues and Challenges with Public Participation in Energy and Natural Resources Development in Alberta

By Nickie Nikolaou

On August 30, 2010

In Energy, Intervenors and Standing, Natural Resources

PDF version: The Issues and Challenges with Public Participation in Energy and Natural Resources Development in Alberta

Introduction

Public participation is a key feature of energy and natural resources development in Alberta. The provincial government often expresses its desire for participation by Albertans in its policy making and planning processes. At the project approval stage, project proponents regularly conduct public consultation programs and regulatory boards hold public hearings and award costs to interveners.

Yet there are signs that public participation is not all that it seems in the Alberta energy and resources development context. Albertans seem frustrated and dissatisfied with the current level or type of public participation available: see, for example, Dan Woynillowicz & Steve Kennett, “Passage of Bill 46 Perpetuates EUB Shortcomings” (2007). Applications for leave to appeal decisions of energy tribunals on issues of public participation and procedural fairness seem to be on the rise: see, for example, Prince v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2010 ABCA 214, Cheyne v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2009 ABCA 94, and Kelly v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 52.

The Canadian Institute of Resources Law (CIRL) at the University of Calgary is currently engaged in a research project, funded by the Alberta Law Foundation, which is focusing on legal and policy questions in relation to public participation in the Alberta energy and natural resources development context. To obtain input on the issues and challenges facing public participation in this context, CIRL held a Round Table discussion at the University of Calgary on April 16, 2010. There were 20 participants in attendance, all of whom have experience with public participation issues in the energy and natural resources development context. There was representation from landowners, regulators, industry, the regulatory bar, environmental and natural resources organizations, multi-stakeholder consultation groups, policy and energy consultants, and academia.

Still More Questions about Standing before the ERCB

By Nickie Nikolaou

On July 16, 2010

In Aboriginal, Intervenors and Standing, Natural Resources

PDF version: Still More Questions about Standing before the ERCB

Case Considered: Prince v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2010 ABCA 214

Leave to appeal applications from standing decisions of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) continue to be heard almost, it seems, regularly. Some cases raise questions about the first part of the standing test, whether a “right” has been established that may be affected by a proposed energy project. Others focus on the second part of the test, whether possible direct and adverse effects have been demonstrated. Sometimes the Court of Appeal grants leave; sometimes it does not. Prince v. Alberta (ERCB) is another case of leave denied. It is also yet another case that raises important questions about the proper interpretation of the test for standing. Isn’t it time for legislative direction?