Author: Shaun Fluker Page 6 of 37

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

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.

Alberta Extends the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation for Another 5 Years

By Shaun Fluker

On April 11, 2022

In Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Alberta Extends the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation for Another 5 Years

Order Commented On: Order in Council 084/2022 (April 6, 2022)

On April 6, the Lieutenant Governor in Council issued Order in Council 084/2022 which amends section 35 of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Alta Reg 98/2006 to extend the Regulation for another 5 years (moving the expiry date from April 30, 2022, to April 30, 2027). There is nothing particularly unusual about this amendment, and indeed it would be very problematic if the Regulation were simply left to expire on April 30 given the role and function of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) in adjudicating landlord-tenant disputes under the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 and the Mobile Home Sites Tenancies Act, RSA 2000, c M-20. My reason for noting this here is because of what did not occur along with the amendment. Specifically, the absence of any apparent review of the Regulation and its governance measures concerning the RTDRS.

Former Minister of Justice Attempted to Interfere with the Administration of Justice: Kent Report

By Shaun Fluker

On February 28, 2022

In Rule of Law

By: Shaun Fluker, Nigel Bankes & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Former Minister of Justice Attempted to Interfere with the Administration of Justice: Kent Report

Matter Commented On: The Kent Report (February 15, 2022)

On February 25, the Premier issued a brief statement announcing that former Minister of Justice, Kaycee Madu, was being shifted to Minister of Labour and Immigration, and that the former Minister of Labour and Immigration, Tyler Shandro, is now the Minister of Justice. This Friday afternoon swap was in response to the findings of retired Justice Adèle Kent in her investigation into a phone call made by Minister Madu to the Edmonton Chief of Police on the morning of March 10, 2021, concerning a traffic ticket issued to him that very same morning. As we discuss at the end of this post, this investigation seemingly only occurred because CBC news reporter Elise Von Sheel revealed the making of the call in a news story published on January 17, 2022. Several hours after the CBC broke the news, Premier Kenney announced on Twitter that Minister Madu was temporarily stepping aside from his ministerial duties while an independent investigation reviewed whether the call amounted to an interference with the administration of justice. The Kent Report concludes that the call (1) was an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice and (2) created a reasonable perception of an interference with the administration of justice. In this post, we summarize and comment on the findings of the Kent Report.

COVID-19 and the Emergencies Act (Canada) Redux

By Shaun Fluker

On February 17, 2022

In Emergencies Act, Protest

By: Shaun Fluker

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

Legislation Commented On: Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp); Order in Council, PC Number: 2022-0106 (February 14, 2022), SOR/2022-20; Emergency Measures Regulation, SOR/2022-21; Emergency Economic Measures Order, SOR/2022-22

On February 14, the federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General announced the declaration of a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4^th Supp). The emergency was formally declared by proclamation made by the Governor in Council under section 17 of the Act with Order in Council, PC Number: 2022-0106 (February 14, 2022), SOR/2022-20. This proclamation provides for the exercise of extraordinary powers to take measures to end the blockades and occupations across Canada; actions that were initiated as a protest against restrictions on individual and economic liberties imposed by COVID-19 public health measures, but which quickly morphed into #freedomconvoy, weaponized extremism, threats of insurrection, and significant economic losses. The emergency powers have initially been set out in the Emergency Measures Regulation, SOR/2022-21 and the Emergency Economic Measures Order, SOR/2022-22. As is required by the Act, the declaration and these powers will be the subject of a debate in Parliament this week.

Alberta Heads the Wrong Direction with Bill 79 – the Proposed Trails Act

By Shaun Fluker

On November 8, 2021

In Environmental

By: Shaun Fluker and David Mayhood

PDF Version: Alberta Heads the Wrong Direction with Bill 79 – the Proposed Trails Act

Bill Commented On: Bill 79, the Proposed Trails Act, 2^nd Sess, 30^th Leg, Alberta, 2021

On November 2, 2021, the Minister of Environment and Parks (Jason Nixon) introduced Bill 79 – the proposed Trails Act – into the legislative assembly for first reading. Initial public reactions varied significantly from the positive endorsements given by recreational trail user groups (such as those quoted in the government’s media statement) to the critical assessments on social media (see here) and environmental groups (such as the Alberta Wilderness Association). One thing Bill 79 does not implement is the trail permit fee on off-highway vehicle (OHV) users which the Minister previously indicated was forthcoming. This omission not only further highlights the glaring absence of the McLean Creek area from the access fee imposed by the Kananaskis Conservation Pass, it also reinforces the view that OHV users have the Minister’s ear on policy development. In this post, we critically examine the actual content in Bill 79 and explain why the proposed Trails Act will result in further damage and destruction to public lands in Alberta.