Category: Administrative Law Page 2 of 41

Cases and Decisions Commented On: Northback Holdings Corporation v. Alberta Energy and Joint Review Panel For the Grassy Mountain Coal Project acting in its capacity as the Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 CanLII 99179 (SCC) and Northback Holdings Corporation v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2025 FCA 31 (CanLII).

PDF Version: Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Project and Other Coal Matters: Update 4, October 2025

In addition to ABlawg’s coal law and policy series and the Coal Law and Policy ebook, we have provided occasional posts updating readers on the status of the Grassy Mountain Coal project and the related litigation. As the title of the post suggests, this is the fourth update following earlier updates in February 2024, August 2024, and June 2025.

Benga, now known as Northback, first applied for permits for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project in May 2015 (GM.1). A Joint Review Panel (JRP) consisting of federal and provincial regulators held a hearing from October 2020 to January 2021. The JRP report in June 2021 denied provincial permits for the project and in August 2021, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change denied federal permits for the project. Recognizing that the project requires both federal and provincial permits, Northback brought litigation relating to the provincial permits in Alberta courts and litigation relating to the federal permits in federal courts in its efforts to get the project approved. In order to revisit the JRP report and decision and revive GM.1, Northback needed to succeed with its litigation in both the Alberta courts and the federal courts. The most recent developments confirm that all of Northback’s attacks on the provincial decision-making have failed and GM.1 is dead and buried. While there is some outstanding litigation in the federal courts relating to GM.1, even if Northback or the First Nation applicants are successful, the remaining litigation cannot obtain the permits necessary for GM.1 to proceed.

The Mature Asset Strategy for Alberta’s Oil and Gas Closure Liability Crisis: Where there is Smoke [and Mirrors], there is Fire

By Martin Olszynski

On September 30, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Martin Olszynski, Drew Yewchuk, and Shaun Fluker

Matter Commented On: Alberta’s Mature Asset Strategy: What we Heard and Recommendations Report, April 3, 2025

PDF Version: The Mature Asset Strategy for Alberta’s Oil and Gas Closure Liability Crisis: Where there is Smoke [and Mirrors], there is Fire

The Alberta government is poised yet again to change its policy direction for addressing the crisis of unfunded closure liabilities in the conventional oil and gas sector. The current yet-to-be-fully-implemented Liability Management Framework (LMF) was announced – to considerable fanfare – just five years ago, in what seemed like an exchange for $1 billion in federal COVID funding to be applied towards closure work on inactive and orphaned facilities. Now that this federal money has been spent (although $137 million was curiously not spent and had to be returned), and Alberta’s inactive well inventory appears to once again be growing, it is apparently time to abandon the LMF for a ‘new’ policy direction that, if nothing else, will once again delay actually dealing with the problem: enter the Mature Asset Strategy (MAS).

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

By Nigel Bankes

On September 15, 2025

In Administrative Law, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes and Shaun Fluker

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.