University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Author: Shaun Fluker Page 2 of 37

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

Legal Hunting of an Endangered Species: A Grizzly Tale in Alberta

By: Shaun Fluker

Legislation commented on: Wildlife (Grizzly Bear – Ministerial) Amendment Regulation, Alta Reg 115/2024

PDF Version: Legal Hunting of an Endangered Species: A Grizzly Tale in Alberta

On July 9 the Alberta government issued a news release announcing that the Minister of Forestry and Parks has reinstated a grizzly bear hunt in Alberta. In this post, I describe the legislative amendment made to enable the hunt and explain how effective endangered species legislation (non-existent in Alberta) would make it much more difficult for the Minister to do this. Alberta’s endangered species law and policy has always been a sad joke in terms of facilitating protection or recovery of species, but the UCP government has now managed to make this a sad and twisted joke. Alberta has joined a select group of countries in the world that authorize hunting of a majestic fauna species that they also designate as threatened with extinction (membership in this group includes many African nations who cater to trophy hunters – see Elephants, lions and leopards: 13 countries where rich people hunt endangered animals.

The Problem with Industry Control of the OWA, and OWA Control of Oil and Gas Insolvency

By: Drew Yewchuk & Shaun Fluker

Regulatory Memo Commented On: Internal Alberta Energy Regulator Memorandum, Unintended Consequences of Ministerial Order 043/2023 in Insolvency April 11, 2024

PDF Version: The Problem with Industry Control of the OWA, and OWA Control of Oil and Gas Insolvency

 The focus of this post is an internal memorandum written by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) Orphaning and Insolvency team: the AER Memorandum on Unintended Consequences of Ministerial Order 043/2023 in Insolvency (the Unintended Consequences Memo). We describe a regulatory problem with potentially serious consequences for municipalities and the public that has not been disclosed to the public by the AER. The Unintended Consequences Memo was obtained in records obtained by the Faculty’s Public Interest Law Clinic in its ongoing closure liabilities access-to-information project under the  Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP).

The Premier’s Review of the AER: A Recipe for How Industry Can Have its Cake and Eat it too

By: Drew Yewchuk, Shaun Fluker, Martin Olszynski, and Nigel Bankes

Commented on: Final report: Premier’s Review of the Alberta Energy Regulator (May 2024)

PDF Version: The Premier’s Review of the AER: A Recipe for How Industry Can Have its Cake and Eat it too

The UCP government continues to overhaul energy policy and regulation in Alberta with no meaningful opportunities for public scrutiny or input. In January 2023, Premier Danielle Smith appointed a five-person Premier’s Advisory Council on Alberta’s Energy Future (Energy Future Council) to prepare a report on Alberta’s energy future. The terms of reference for this Energy Future Council were set by Ministerial Order 02/2023, which was only released to the public in response to a FOIP request (see When Does a Ministerial Order Have to be Published?). The Energy Future Council submitted its report to the Premier in June 2023, but that report has never been made public. In response to this non-published report, the Minister of Energy and Minerals initiated another panel, similarly closed to public input, to review and report on the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). On May 22, 2024, the Government of Alberta elected to release this second report (the AER Report) under the names of two of the five members of the Energy Future Council, David Yager and Bob Curran. As was the case with the recission of the 1976 Coal Policy, the AER Report demonstrates that the UCP government takes its instructions on the direction of energy policy primarily from industry, rather than from the public it serves.

Bill 18 Provincial Priorities Act: Alberta Strikes Again

By: Shaun Fluker

Matter commented on: Bill 18, Provincial Priorities Act, 1st Sess, 31st Leg, Alberta, 2024 (first reading 10 April 2024)

PDF Version: Bill 18 Provincial Priorities Act: Alberta Strikes Again

On April 10, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith introduced Bill 18 for first reading in the current session of the Legislature, and second reading began on April 17. If Bill 18 passes through the legislative process in its current form, it will be enacted as the Provincial Priorities Act and require designated entities to obtain prior approval before entering into, amending, extending, or renewing an agreement with the federal government. The purpose and consequences of Bill 18 have been questioned by those who will be directly affected, including municipalities and post-secondary institutions. The Premier has also spoken to the media about the Bill – see e.g. here. The commentary thus far makes one thing very clear: Bill 18 is a sequel to the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act, SA 2022, c A-33.8 (Sovereignty Act) in its attempt to implement the Free Alberta Strategy and block what are seen as federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction. Less clear is whether there are also some ideological motivations for the Bill. This post examines the content of Bill 18 and, to further understand the purpose of this proposed statute, reflects on the opening statements made by the Premier during first and second reading in the Legislature.

Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex: Limited Statutory Rights of Appeal and The Availability of Judicial Review

By: Shaun Fluker, Drew Yewchuk, and Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8 (CanLII)

 PDF Version: Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex: Limited Statutory Rights of Appeal and The Availability of Judicial Review

This post discusses the recent Supreme Court decision in Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8 (CanLII) (Yatar). The decision addresses the availability of judicial review of administrative decisions when the legislature has established a restricted statutory right of appeal for those same decisions. This unanimous decision is an important affirmation of the continued availability of judicial review – at least for grounds of review not covered by the statutory appeal right. However, it seems likely that this decision, especially when read together with the Court’s decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII) (Vavilov) will encourage parallel or sequential filings under both the statutory appeal provisions and for judicial review.

Page 2 of 37

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén