Category: Administrative Law Page 2 of 41

Decisions Commented On: AER Panel Decision (July 23, 2025 – Proceeding 449) and AER Reconsideration Decision (August 21, 2015)

PDF Version: CEO of the Alberta Energy Regulator Denies Public Hearing Rights on a Coal Application

This post comments on a recent interlocutory proceeding at the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER or Regulator) concerning a motion by Summit Coal Inc. (Summit) to cancel a scheduled public hearing on its coal mine project application. The basis for the motion was that all the directly and adversely affected persons who initially opposed the application, had subsequently withdrawn their opposition. Accordingly, Summit submitted there was no longer a need for a public hearing to consider the application. The AER panel assigned to the hearing dismissed Summit’s motion on July 23, ruling that the hearing should proceed because two ENGOs with full participation status in the hearing remain opposed to the application. On August 21 the AER’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Rob Morgan issued a reconsideration decision that reversed the panel’s ruling and cancelled the public hearing. Two novel questions of law under the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c R-17.3 (REDA) arise from these decisions: (1) as a matter of law does the CEO have the authority to vary or reverse a decision of a panel of a hearing commissioners seized with an application to the AER and (2) what is the legal significance of being “directly and adversely affected” for the purposes of a hearing on an application before the AER.

Securing the Infrastructure, Straining the Constitution? Bill C-8’s Cybersecurity Overhaul

By Dav More

On September 5, 2025

In Administrative Law, Constitutional, Privacy

By: Dav More and Tulika Bali

Matter Commented On: Bill C-8 , An Act respecting cyber security (1st Sess, 45th Parl, 2025)

PDF Version: Securing the Infrastructure, Straining the Constitution? Bill C-8’s Cybersecurity Overhaul

Cyberattacks targeting vital infrastructure have intensified globally. Recent high-profile incidents in the United States and Europe prompted national governments to tighten regulation (see Industrial Cyber, The National Law Review, CER, and AP News). The EU’s NIS2 Directive mandates stricter cybersecurity standards across member states by 2024. In Canada, the federal government introduced Bill C-26 in June 2022, aiming to overhaul cybersecurity regulation, but that bill died when Parliament was prorogued in early 2025 (Miller Thomson at para 2-3).

New Standards (or is it a Book Ban?) in Alberta K-12 Schools

By Shaun Fluker

On July 15, 2025

In Administrative Law, Education, Equality, Youth and the Law

By: Shaun Fluker

Order Commented On: Ministerial Order 030/2025 (Education and Childcare)

PDF Version: New Standards (or is it a Book Ban?) in Alberta K-12 Schools

On July 4, 2025, Education and Childcare Minister Demetrios Nicolaides issued Ministerial Order 030/2025 prohibiting the inclusion of library materials with prescribed sexual content in K-12 schools. The Minister’s statement that this is about school standards and not a book ban, as reported by CBC News here, is simply not reconcilable with the written terms of his Order, as explained in this post.

A Radical Departure: Remarks on Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

By Martin Olszynski

On June 19, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Indigenous, Law Reform

By: Martin Olszynski

Matter Commented On: Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

PDF Version: A Radical Departure: Remarks on Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

On Tuesday, June 17^th, 2025, I had the opportunity to appear before the Senate in the context of its study of Bill C-5, Part II of which contains the Building Canada Act. Professor David Wright and I provided an initial analysis of this part of Bill C-5 shortly after it was tabled. As is my regular practice, this post includes my prepared remarks, which expand on some of that earlier analysis. I have also included hyperlinks where useful. In our initial post, Professor Wright asked whether Bill C-5 will allow Canada to ‘move fast and make things’ or ‘move fast and break things’? While it is still too early to answer that question from a project review perspective (the prospects, however, appear increasingly dim), it is now clear that as drafted Bill C-5 breaks fundamental democratic norms, at the least, and that our democracy and the rule of law will be diminished for it.

An Important Alberta Crown Lease Continuation Decision

By Nigel Bankes

On May 1, 2025

In Administrative Law, Land Use, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: APL Oil & Gas (1998) Ltd v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 201 (CanLII)

PDF Version: An Important Alberta Crown Lease Continuation Decision

In the natural resources sector, as in so many other industrial sectors that require major capital investments in physical assets, security of tenure for those engaging in exploration activities (resource lessees) is foundational. And a crucial part of security of tenure for a resource lessee is the expectation that, if they make a discovery, they will be able to hold on to that discovery at least until they have recovered all their investment including a return on risk capital, or better yet, until the discovery has been fully exploited and is no longer profitable to produce. On the other hand, the resource owner (whether private or public (Crown)) wants to ensure diligent exploration and development by the resource operator/lessee, failing which the property should be returned to the owner so as to allow the owner to explore other potential lessees.