Author Archives: Shaun Fluker

About Shaun Fluker

B.Comm. (Alberta), LL.B. (Victoria), LL.M. (Calgary). Associate Professor. Please click here for more information.

COVID-19 and the Public Health Act (Alberta)

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and the Public Health Act (Alberta)

Legislation Commented On: Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37

All levels of government in Canada are working hard to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigate its severe impacts on public health. Despite the fact that COVID-19 is a national emergency, the federal government has not declared it as such under the Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp) (I previously wrote about this here). For now, we have a collaboration of public health emergency declarations made by provincial, territorial and municipal governments. Alberta declared a public health emergency on March 17, on the recommendation of the Minister of Health and on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, with Order in Council 80/2020 issued under section 52.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37. This post critically examines how Alberta is exercising its emergency legal power under this legislation. Continue reading →

COVID-19 and the Emergencies Act (Canada)

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and the Emergencies Act (Canada)

Legislation Commented On: Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp)

As we move deeper into the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, provincial, territorial and municipal governments are now using legal rules to impose self-isolation and social distancing measures for the common good of preventing community transmission of the virus. The narrative in daily updates from government leaders and public health officials has shifted away from encouraging voluntary practices and more towards invoking command and control, as evidence mounts that voluntary suggestions are not being followed. Command and control is, however, largely going to be a general deterrence measure because actual enforcement in individual cases will be very difficult and resource intensive (hence why some jurisdictions, such as the State of Oregon, are encouraging citizens to help with enforcement by reporting violators of public health orders). All of this underscores the fact that we are truly in the midst of a socio-economic crisis, and has led to suggestions (e.g. see here and here) that federal cabinet issue a proclamation of national emergency under the Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp) and exercise the powers granted thereunder. Continue reading →

Vavilov on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Vavilov on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law

Case Commented On: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII)

In the summer of 2018, I wrote about disagreement within the Supreme Court of Canada over the role of contextual factors in the selection of a standard of review in Canadian administrative law (see The Great Divide on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law). At that time, the Court had arrived at yet another fork in the road on standard of review and stated it would address the matter head-on in a hearing scheduled for late 2018. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII) (Vavilov) is the result of that hearing, and Vavilov has, once again, amended the law applicable to selecting and applying the standard of review. This post is my analysis of Vavilov, and is organized as follows: (1) an overview on the law regarding standard of review up to Vavilov; (2) the law as per Vavilov on selecting the standard of review; (3) the law as per Vavilov on applying the standard of reasonableness; and (4) a short conclusion. I am admittedly somewhat late to this party. My colleague Nigel Bankes has previously written on an aspect of Vavilov here (which I reference below) and I also encourage readers interested in this topic to have a look at Paul Daly’s analysis of Vavilov here. Continue reading →

Fortress Mountain and the Sale of Water from Kananaskis Country

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Fortress Mountain and the Sale of Water from Kananaskis Country

Matter commented on: Fortress Mountain Holdings Ltd. Application No. 003-00037369 under the Water Act, RSA 2000 c W-3

This is a short comment to raise awareness about a systemic problem in how Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) administers its decision-making powers concerning the development of natural resources and assesses the environmental impacts associated with this development. It is a problem of transparency and more particularly, the absence of transparency and lack of any meaningful opportunity for public participation in the AEP decision-making process. This is not a new problem, and it is one which I canvassed more thoroughly in The Right to Public Participation in Resources and Environmental Decision-Making in Alberta published by the Alberta Law Review in 2015. In short, decisions made by AEP under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000 c E-12 (EPEA) or the Water Act concerning the use or development of natural resources are generally made behind closed doors with no opportunity for public input and minimal disclosure. This makes a mockery of the statements of purpose set out in section 2 of EPEA and section 2 of the Water Act, which state that a purpose of each Act is to provide opportunities for citizens to give advice on decisions affecting the environment. Continue reading →

Public Interest Standing and Wild Horses in Alberta

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Public Interest Standing and Wild Horses in Alberta

Case commented on: Alberta’s Free Roaming Horses Society v Alberta, 2019 ABQB 714 (CanLII)

This decision grants public interest standing to Alberta’s Free Roaming Horses Society and one individual (the ‘Applicants’) seeking declarations and mandamus in relation to a 2005 ministerial designation of public lands under section 9 of the Stray Animals Act, RSA 2000, c S-20. The Applicants assert that the Minister responsible for the administration of public lands under the Act failed to comply with a statutory requirement to form an opinion in relation to designating lands upon which persons may be licensed to capture and dispose of wild horses. They accordingly sought a judicial declaration that the 2005 land designation is void and an order requiring the Minister to form the opinion and publish it prior to making any future land designations under section 9 of the Act. The Province responded that the Applicants do not have standing to commence these proceedings and that the proceedings should be struck as an abuse of process. The Province also sought summary dismissal on the basis that the Applicants’ claim is barred by a limitation period. In this decision, Mr. Justice B.A. Millar ruled that the Applicants have public interest standing, but he summarily dismissed the application because the proceedings relate to a decision made in 2005 which is far beyond the 6 month time limitation for seeking judicial review under section 3.15(2) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010. Continue reading →