Author Archives: Shaun Fluker

About Shaun Fluker

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

A Stay of Proceedings and Endangered Species at the Environmental Appeals Board

PDF Version: A Stay of Proceedings and Endangered Species at the Environmental Appeals Board

Decision commented on: Hanson and Lindberg v Director, Northern Region, Operations Division, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, re: County of St. Paul (07 November 2013), Appeal Nos. 13-005 and 006-ID1 (AEAB).

This is a decision on preliminary matters by the Alberta Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) concerning an approval issued by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) under the Water Act, RSA 2000 c W-3 to fill a wetland in the County of St. Paul.  The EAB hearing on the merits of the approval will be heard in January 2014. Before the EAB in this matter was a request by the Appellants for a stay of the approval pending the merit hearing. The EAB grants the stay, and I will comment on that here.  I also note this decision for its discussion on how the federal Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (SARA) applies to this case – keeping in mind SARA is federal legislation but does have some application within provinces and thus it is of ongoing interest to observe how SARA is considered and applied by provincial authorities.

Continue reading →

The Smoking Gun Revealed: Alberta Environment Denies Environmental Groups Who Oppose Oil Sands Projects the Right to Participate in the Decision-Making Process

PDF Version: The Smoking Gun Revealed: Alberta Environment Denies Environmental Groups Who Oppose Oil Sands Projects the Right to Participate in the Decision-Making Process

Cases Considered: Pembina Institute v Alberta (Environment and Sustainable Resource Development), 2013 ABQB 567

This decision by Justice Marceau exposes the very disconcerting trend in Alberta of public officials – in particular those with Alberta Environment – opposing the participation of environmental groups in resources and environmental decision-making. Think about this for a minute. Public officials who work on behalf of Albertans and are paid with public funds actively, and in some cases aggressively, oppose participation by organized members of the public seeking input into how public resources are allocated and developed. To be sure, there is something terribly amiss within the corridors of Alberta Environment. The Pembina Institute and the Fort McMurray Environmental Association have served Albertans generally in bringing attention to this by defending their right to participate in the decision-making process concerning a SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) oil sands project along the MacKay River.

Continue reading →

Who Gets the Final Say on a Mineral Royalty Calculation? And Some Grumbling on Standard of Review Analysis

PDF Version: Who Gets the Final Say on a Mineral Royalty Calculation? And Some Grumbling on Standard of Review Analysis

Case considered: Saskatchewan (Ministry of Energy and Resources) v Areva Resources Canada Inc., 2013 SKCA 79

This comment looks at a recent decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal concerning the judicial review of a mineral royalty decision made by Saskatchewan’s Minister of Energy and Resources. In Saskatchewan (Ministry of Energy and Resources) v Areva Resources Canada Inc., 2013 SKCA 79, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upholds a royalty calculation made by the Minister pursuant to the Crown Minerals Act, SS 1984-85-86, c C-50.2 and underlying regulations. I think this case is of interest to ABlawg readers because it involves the judicial review of a mineral royalty decision and it also concerns appellate-level consideration of the standard of review applicable to a ministerial decision – a topic of recent interest in the judiciary and which Professor Olszynski explores in his recent ABlawg post “Of Killer Whales, Sage-grouse, and the Battle Against (Madisonian) Tyranny”.

Continue reading →

Justice for the Blanding’s Turtle at the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal

PDF version: Justice for the Blanding’s Turtle at the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal

Case commented on: Prince Edward (County) v Ontario (Ministry of the Environment), [2013] OERTD No 40.

Sometimes an exploration into what is missing will reveal more than a study of what is.  An examination of how differently things are done elsewhere can tell us a lot about our own ways.  Okay, perhaps it is just easier for me to say this comment looks at a recent decision of Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal to explore what it reveals about Alberta law governing energy projects and endangered species. In this case, Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) revokes an approval issued by the Director (Ministry of the Environment) under the Green Energy Act, SO 2009, c 12 for the construction of a wind turbine project on a peninsula of Crown land bordering Lake Ontario. The Tribunal’s decision is based on its finding that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding’s turtle – a species listed as threatened under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, RSO 2007, c 6.

Continue reading →

Raising Questions About the Use of an Offset For Compliance with Carbon Emission Reduction Obligations

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Raising Questions About the Use of an Offset For Compliance with Carbon Emission Reduction Obligations

Case Commented On: Citizen’s Climate Lobby and Our Children’s Earth Foundation v California Air Resources Board (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, January 25, 2013, Case number CGC-2-519544)

This comment examines a recent judicial review decision by the Superior Court of California dismissing a challenge to the legality of the carbon emission offset regime established by California’s Air Resources Board (CARB). The petitioners in this case alleged the offset regime does not comply with its parent statute – the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, (California, AB 32) – and thus the CARB does not have legal authority to implement it. The essence of the claim was that a carbon emission offset created by the CARB regime would not necessarily represent the real and demonstrable carbon emission reduction required by the legislation. The Court ruled the offset regime created and administered by the CARB complies with the legislation.

Continue reading →