Author: Shaun Fluker Page 5 of 36

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

By: Shaun Fluker

Matter Commented On: Environment and Climate Change Canada Draft Offsetting Policy for Biodiversity

PDF Version: Biodiversity Offsets and the Species at Risk Act (Canada)

The federal government has a laudable objective of ‘no net loss’ for development projects that will harm biodiversity in Canada. For threatened species who will lose habitat because of development, the concept of ‘no net loss’ means either avoidance, mitigation, or offsets. Avoidance of habitat loss (e.g. no project) is rarely seriously considered – and is really nonsensical when a project footprint overlaps with habitat – and efforts aimed at mitigation of adverse effects on threatened species are widely known to be pie-in-the-sky measures with little or no effectiveness (see here). Thus, a ‘no net loss’ outcome in the context of choosing between development and protecting habitat necessarily means the use of biodiversity offsets. David Poulton has written extensively for ABlawg on the topic of biodiversity offsets and resource development (see e.g. here), and a constant theme in this topic is the legal and policy vacuum on biodiversity offsets. In 2016, the Public Interest Law Clinic submitted comments on a proposed offsets policy under section 73 of the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (Drew Yewchuk and I posted that submission to ABlawg here). Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has recently issued a draft Offsetting Policy for Biodiversity which will replace its 2012 policy, and this post publishes my submission letter giving comments to ECCC on the Offsets Policy as it relates to threatened species, in response to the public engagement which closed on February 17, 2023.

Judicial Review on the Vires of Subordinate Legislation: Full Vavilov, Partial Vavilov or No Vavilov?

By Shaun Fluker

On February 6, 2023

In Administrative Law, Conflict of Laws

By: Shaun Fluker

Cases Commented On: Auer v Auer, 2022 ABCA 375 (CanLII) and TransAlta Generation Partnership v Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs), 2022 ABCA 381 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Judicial Review on the Vires of Subordinate Legislation: Full Vavilov, Partial Vavilov or No Vavilov?

This comment examines two decisions issued concurrently by the Alberta Court of Appeal in late November 2022 that reject the application of a standard of review analysis when reviewing the vires (aka legality) of a ‘true’ regulation, (the need for the modifier is explained below). This is a topic that I have casually followed for some time. In 2016 I wrote Does the Standard of Review Analysis Apply to a Vires Determination of Subordinate Legislation? and in 2018 I wrote Judicial Review on the Vires of Subordinate Legislation. Together these earlier posts describe an uncertainty that has reigned for years over whether a standard of review analysis applies to the vires determination of subordinate legislation. In its overhaul on standard of review in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII) (Vavilov), the Supreme Court of Canada did not explicitly address this question (for my overview on standard of review under Vavilov see Vavilov on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law). The uncertainty has evolved into a jurisprudential conflict. In Portnov v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 171 (CanLII) (Portnov), the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that a Vavilov standard of review analysis applies to the vires determination of regulations (Portnov at paras 23 – 28; see more recently Innovative Medicines Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 210 (CanLII)). In Auer v Auer, 2022 ABCA 375 (CanLII) (Auer) and TransAlta Generation Partnership v Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs), 2022 ABCA 381 (CanLII) (TransAlta Generation) the Court of Appeal rules that Vavilov may partially apply to some regulations but not ‘true’ regulations (Justice Feehan departs from the majority in Auer on this point: Auer at para 117)).

For the Record: Who Makes COVID-19 Public Health Orders in Alberta?

By Shaun Fluker

On August 2, 2022

In COVID-19

By: Shaun Fluker and Lorian Hardcastle

Decisions commented on: CM v Alberta, 2022 ABQB 462 (CanLII); CM v Alberta, 2022 ABQB 357 (CanLII)

PDF Version: For the Record: Who Makes COVID-19 Public Health Orders in Alberta?

In an effort to be a frontrunner in the race to remove COVID-19 public health measures during the early months of 2022, the Alberta government made several notable moves, including decisions on masking. On February 8, 2022, the Premier announced that children would no longer be required to wear masks in school as of February 14 and that children under 12 would not be required to mask anywhere. On the same day, the Minister of Education took the opportunity to issue her own written direction that “[A]s of February 14, 2022 school boards will not be empowered by provincial health order or recommendations from the CMOH to require ECS – grade 12 students to be masked to attend school in person or to ride a school bus.” This direction by the Minister was a notable departure from her earlier position that schools were explicitly permitted to implement public health measures to respond to their own local context.

Anti-SLAPP Legislation in Ontario Developing into a Procedural Framework Post-Pointes Protection

By Shaun Fluker

On June 15, 2022

In Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigants

By: Shaun Fluker

Case Commented On: Dent-X Canada v Houde, 2022 ONCA 414 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Anti-SLAPP Legislation in Ontario Developing into a Procedural Framework Post-Pointes Protection

This very short post has a simple purpose: to make the point that Alberta is falling behind Ontario (and British Columbia) in the development of anti-SLAPP procedures. Anti-SLAPP legislation provides a procedural mechanism for persons to seek and obtain summary dismissal of litigation solely intended to strategically suppress expression on matters related to the public interest.

Red Flags with Bill 15 – Education (Reforming Teacher Profession Discipline) Amendment Act

By Shaun Fluker

On May 10, 2022

In Administrative Law, Rule of Law

By: Shaun Fluker

Legislation Commented On: Bill 15 – Education (Reforming Teacher Profession Discipline) Amendment Act (30^th Legislature, 3^rd Session, Minister of Education)

PDF Version: Red Flags with Bill 15 – Education (Reforming Teacher Profession Discipline) Amendment Act

One day the Supreme Court of Canada will revisit its 2001 decision in Ocean Port Hotel Ltd v British Columbia (General Manager, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch), 2001 SCC 52 (CanLII), [2001] 2 SCR 78, because the Court will eventually have to address its failure in Ocean Port to give adequate consideration to the importance of real independence in the administrative process established by the executive branch, both in matters generally and more particularly in disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary process for Alberta teachers, recently added to the Education Act, SA 2012, c E-0.3 by Bill 15, is a case in point. The Minister of Education stated at the beginning of second reading for the bill that the Commissioner in charge of the disciplinary process “would operate at arm’s length from the ministry.” (Alberta Hansard, April 21 2022 at 767) This post examines Bill 15 to assess the accuracy of the Minister’s claim, and concludes that not only is the Commissioner not sufficiently independent of the Minister, the disciplinary process as a whole exhibits very little indicia of being independent.

Author: Shaun Fluker Page 5 of 36

Biodiversity Offsets and the Species at Risk Act (Canada)

Judicial Review on the Vires of Subordinate Legislation: Full Vavilov, Partial Vavilov or No Vavilov?

For the Record: Who Makes COVID-19 Public Health Orders in Alberta?

Anti-SLAPP Legislation in Ontario Developing into a Procedural Framework Post-Pointes Protection

Red Flags with Bill 15 – Education (Reforming Teacher Profession Discipline) Amendment Act