Category Archives: Administrative Law

Administrative Penalties at the Alberta Energy Regulator: Regulatory Penalties for the Kearl Oilsands Leak

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decisions Commented On: AER Notice of Administrative Penalty 202408-009, AER Administrative Sanction 202408-010, and AER News Release 2024-08-22

PDF Version: Administrative Penalties at the Alberta Energy Regulator: Regulatory Penalties for the Kearl Oilsands Leak

On August 22, 2024, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) issued notice of administrative penalty 202408-009 (penalty decision) and administrative sanction 202408-010 (administrative sanction) (together, the ‘enforcement decisions’) imposing terms and conditions to Imperial Oil Resources Limited (Imperial Oil). The AER also issued a news release about these two enforcement actions. This post assesses the AER’s enforcement decisions and the justifications provided for them.

Continue reading →

The New Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner Approach to Time Extensions for FOIP Requests

By: Drew Yewchuk

Administrative Policy Commented on: OIPC Practice Note Request for Time Extension Under FOIP Section 14

PDF Version: The New Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner Approach to Time Extensions for FOIP Requests

On June 17th, 2024, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta (OIPC) changed their policy for Time Extension Requests Under Section 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP). The OIPC issued two new standardized forms and issued a practice note for public bodies seeking time extensions (the Practice Note). The OIPC’s attention to how they exercise their discretion in granting time extensions is encouraging and shows the OIPC is doing what it can to address the delay problem in Alberta FOIP. This post assesses a few of the more notable changes.

Continue reading →

Administrative Penalties at the Alberta Energy Regulator: A Rational Calculation of a Penalty Unlikely to be Paid

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decision Commented on: AER Administrative Penalty 202405-002, Tallahassee Exploration Inc. (May 2024)

PDF Version: Administrative Penalties at the Alberta Energy Regulator: A Rational Calculation of a Penalty Unlikely to be Paid

This is the second post on how the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) makes decisions on financial penalties to companies that contravene the conditions of their project approvals. The first post, in April 2023, commented on an AER penalty to Ovintiv for operating a sour gas plant with a shorter than approved flare stack.

Continue reading →

You Shall Not Pass Go: The End of Monopoly (and Self-Governance) for BC Lawyers

By: Michael Ilg

Matter Commented On: Bill 21– 2024, Legal Professions Act, 5th Session, 42nd Parliament (2024)

PDF Version: You Shall Not Pass Go: The End of Monopoly (and Self-Governance) for BC Lawyers

What is the difference between a dairy farmer and a lawyer? The most obvious answer might be that one produces a good that has social value, while the other one is a lawyer. A more nuanced answer might be that while Canadian dairy farmers have been extraordinarily successful (or rather notorious) in maintaining their regulation protected monopoly, lawyers, at least in British Columbia, are on the precipice of losing theirs. The object of this short post is to offer some preliminary observations on the BC government’s Bill 21, the proposed new Legal Professions Act, which will do away with the Law Society of BC.

Continue reading →

Two Decades of Nunavut Fisheries Litigation and the Meaning of “Special Consideration”

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated v Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2024 FC 649 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Two Decades of Nunavut Fisheries Litigation and the Meaning of “Special Consideration”

Ever since the ratification of the Nunavut Agreement (Agreement) in 1993, Inuit of Nunavut and especially Inuit of the Qikiqtani region of Nunavut have been attempting to use the Agreement, as well as other levers, to obtain an increased share of fisheries quota, principally for Greenland halibut (turbot) and Northern shrimp, for the waters offshore of Baffin Island. One can think of this as a process of recapturing or repatriating a resource to Nunavut and Nunavummiut that was largely appropriated by fishery interests based in the Atlantic provinces. I first wrote about this process twenty years ago: “Implementing the Fisheries Provisions of the Nunavut Claim: Re-capturing the Resource?” (2003) 12 J Environmental L & Policy 141-204. This most recent decision finally puts some teeth into the “special consideration” language of s 15.3.7 of the Agreement.

Continue reading →