Author Archives: Shaun Fluker

About Shaun Fluker

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

Environmental Private Prosecution Update: John Custer v. Syncrude Canada

Cases Considered:  John Custer v. Syncrude Canada

PDF Version: Environmental Private Prosecution Update: John Custer v. Syncrude Canada

On January 7, John Custer swore an information in front of a Justice of the Peace in Edmonton alleging violation by Syncrude Canada of section 5.1 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, S.C. 1994, c. 22 for depositing substances harmful to migratory birds in its Aurora Mines tailing pond. The prohibition in section 5.1 reads as follows:

5.1 (1) No person or vessel shall deposit a substance that is harmful to migratory birds, or permit such a substance to be deposited, in waters or an area frequented by migratory birds or in a place from which the substance may enter such waters or such an area.

Continue reading →

A case of Disablement and Deference under the Workers’ Compensation Act

Cases Considered: Schneider v. Alberta (Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation), 2008 ABQB 662.

PDF Version: A case of Disablement and Deference under the Workers’ Compensation Act

Maurice Schneider was exposed to asbestos at work in the late 1960s and subsequently developed asbestosis, a drastic reduction in lung capacity whose primary symptom is severe shortness of breath. The disease has a long incubation period before symptoms become apparent (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis). On March 10, 2003 Schneider underwent studies that confirmed he suffers from a mild pulmonary impairment (asbestosis), and in September 2004 the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board accepted that Schneider’s asbestosis was the result of workplace exposure. Schneider was accordingly entitled to benefits under the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15.

Continue reading →

Remembering Martha Kostuch: The Private Prosecution and the Oldman River Dam

Cases considered: Kostuch (Informant) v. WA Stephenson Construction (Western) (1990), 75 Alta. L.R.. (2d) 110 (Alta. Prov. Ct.); Kostuch (Informant) v. W.A. Stephenson (Western) (1991), 78 Alta. L.R. (2d) 131 (Alta. Prov. Ct.); Kostuch (Informant) v. W.A. Stephenson Construction (Western) Ltd., [1991] AJ No. 659 (Alta. Q.B.) (QL); R. v. W.A. Stephenson Construction (Western) Ltd., [1992] AJ No. 316 (Alta. C.A.) (QL); R. v. W.A. Stephenson Construction (Western) Ltd., [1992] AJ No. 233 (Alta. Prov. Ct.) (QL); W.A. Stephenson Construction (Western) Ltd. v. Kostuch, [1992] AJ No. 1262 (Alta. Q.B.) (QL); Kostuch v. W.A. Stephenson Construction (Western) Ltd., [1993] A.J. No. 52 (Alta. C.A.) (QL); Kostuch v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1995] A.J. No. 866 (Alta. C.A.), aff’g [1993] A.J. No. 635 (Alta. Q.B.) (QL)

PDF Version: Remembering Martha Kostuch: The Private Prosecution and the Oldman River Dam

I knew of Martha Kostuch primarily by her reputation as a leader in Alberta environmental advocacy. My personal dealings with Martha were limited to brief discussions at the annual roundtable meeting that she organized between the (then) Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and several environmental non-governmental organizations. My sense of loss for Alberta environmentalism with Martha’s passing in April 2008 inspired me to investigate her contribution to Alberta environmental law. This post reflects on a portion of my findings.

Continue reading →

Back on track to socio-ecological ruin: Kearl oil sands project re-authorized

Cases Considered: Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited v. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development et al, 2008 FC 598, Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302,

PDF Version:  Back on track to socio-ecological ruin: Kearl oil sands project re-authorized

My initial post on the Kearl project (see Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin) was accurate after all. Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s decision in Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302, that held the Kearl joint panel breached section 34 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37, was simply a brief foray into environmental bliss. On June 6, 2008, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans re-issued the requisite authorization under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, to Imperial Oil, reportedly on identical terms and conditions as set out in the original authorization (see my previous post Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization for more discussion on the nullification of the initial authorization). Continue reading →

Money attracts procedural fairness: The case of the overbilling doctor

Cases Considered: Searles v. Alberta (Health and Wellness), 2008 ABQB 307

PDF Version:   Money attracts procedural fairness: The case of the overbilling doctor

Government compensation payable to physicians in Alberta is differentiated under the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan based upon the type of service provided: in short, some service categories pay better than others for physicians. In 2002 Dr. Gordon Searles received notice from Alberta Health and Wellness that his billings to the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan were being reviewed. This review led to a reassessment under section 18 of the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-20, which provides the Minister of Health and Wellness with authority to reassess physicians’ billings on select grounds including where the Minister is of the opinion that “the total amount of benefits paid for service was, in the circumstances, greater compensation to the practitioner for that service than it should have been.” In this case, the Minister’s reassessment (via her delegate) required Dr. Searles to repay $985,777.09 having concluded upon review of his billings that he was overcompensated. The reassessment was based upon the Minister’s conclusion that between April 2000 and February 2004 Dr. Searles’ billing submissions were calculated on the provision of a service category with a higher billing rate than the actual service Dr. Searles had administered to his clients. Dr. Searles subsequently applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench to have the Minister’s reassessment quashed on judicial review for procedural unfairness.

Continue reading →