Category Archives: Administrative Law

What is the applicable standard of review in assessing the adequacy of reasons?

PDF version: What is the applicable standard of review in assessing the adequacy of reasons? 

Case considered: Calgary (City) v Alberta (Municipal Government Board), 2010 ABQB 719

This decision concerns an appeal by the City of Calgary from an order of the Municipal Government Board that set aside a business tax assessment on underground parking facilities owned by BTC Properties II in the downtown area. The Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 and applicable City bylaws provide that a business tax is assessable on those persons who operate a business in premises located in Calgary. The issue at the Municipal Government Board was essentially whether BTC is in the business of selling parking, and one particular item of dispute was whether the fact that BTC charges its tenants a separate and additional fee for parking space is decisive evidence that it is in the parking business. The Municipal Government Board concluded that BTC did not operate a parking business, and accordingly set aside the City’s business tax assessment. The City was unsuccessful in seeking judicial review at the Court of Queen’s Bench. One ground of appeal argued by the City was that the Board did not provide adequate reasons in its decision to set aside the tax assessment. My comment here focuses solely on this issue, and in particular examines the following question: What is the applicable standard of review to be applied by a reviewing court in assessing the adequacy of reasons provided by an administrative decision-maker? Madam Justice Romaine confirms that this issue is not settled law in Alberta (at para 42).

Continue reading →

The Energy Resources Conservation Board proposes to repeal provincial legislation

Proposal commented on: ERCB Bulletin 2010 – 42, Invitation for Feedback on Draft Legislative Amendments for Removing Industrial Development Permits for Energy Resource Use

Yes. That’s right. In Bulletin 2010-42 issued on December 2, 2010 the ERCB announced that it is “proposing to remove industrial development permits (IDP) legislation from its mandate”. If that wasn’t clear enough the Bulletin goes on to state that “The ERCB is proposing to repeal Sections 28 to 31 of the CCA, [Coal Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c. C-17], Section 43 of the OGCA, [Oil and Gas Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c. O- 6] and Section 12 of the OSCA [Oil Sands Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c. O- 7]. The ERCB is also proposing to modify the definitions of a “processing plant” and “oil sands products” under the OSCA to provide greater clarity as to what types of facilities would fall under the ERCB’s jurisdiction.”

Continue reading →

The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the role of administrative tribunals in discharging the duty to consult

PDF version: The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the role of administrative tribunals in discharging the duty to consult 

Case considered: Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43

In the 1950s British Columbia authorized Alcan to develop the Nechako and Kemano Rivers for power purposes to supply Alcan’s aluminum facility at Kitimat. This development occurred in the traditional territory of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) First Nations. There was no consultation at that time. Since then Alcan has sold excess power from its facilities to BC Hydro (a Crown corporation) and in 2007 the parties negotiated an energy purchase agreement (EPA) to cover the period up until 2034. Sales have been growing in recent years as Alcan has found it more profitable to generate electricity than make aluminum: Kitimat (District) v. British Columbia (Minister of Energy and Mines), 2008 BCCA 81.

Continue reading →

Public Rights Trump Private Privilege

PDF version: Public Rights Trump Private Privilege  

Case considered: J.O. v. Strathcona-Tweedsmuir School, 2010 ABQB 559

In December 2006 the Strathcona-Tweedsmuir School expelled J.O. based on allegations that she had been seen having sex with her boyfriend in the women’s washroom at the Calgary Golf and Country Club. The allegations were “mistaken” (para. 41). J.O. was rather suffering the predictable consequences of teenage drinking and a long-car ride; she was drunk and sick, and her boyfriend was in the bathroom helping to clean her up.

Continue reading →

Lucy the Elephant v. Edmonton (City)

PDF version: Lucy the Elephant v. Edmonton (City) 

Case considered: Reece v. Edmonton (City), 2010 ABQB 538

Lucy is a 34 year old elephant who lives in the Edmonton Valley Zoo. In recent years Lucy has attracted significant media and celebrity attention, as animal welfare activists have campaigned for her transfer to a warmer climate (details on the campaign and Lucy herself are documented here). Activists insist that Lucy is in distress because of her living conditions in the Edmonton zoo. Media celebrities including William Shatner and Bob Barker have called upon the City of Edmonton to allow Lucy to move south. Lucy’s plight has attracted the attention of the local media as well (see “Free Lucy the elephant: protesters“, CBC News). The Valley Zoo insists Lucy is fine and cannot be safely moved.

In the Fall of 2009, ZooCheck Canada and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) retained Ontario lawyer Clayton Ruby to advise them on possible legal remedies for Lucy. In February 2010 ZooCheck, PETA, and a local Alberta resident (Tove Reece) filed an Originating Notice in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench seeking a judicial declaration that the City of Edmonton (as operator of the Valley Zoo) was contravening section 2 of the Animal Protection Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-41, in its treatment of Lucy at the Valley Zoo. Associate Chief Justice John Rooke heard the ZooCheck application along with the City’s motion to strike the proceeding under Rule 129 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 390/1968. In Reece v. Edmonton (City), 2010 ABQB 538 Justice Rooke grants the City’s motion to strike on the basis that the ZooCheck/PETA application is an abuse of process for two reasons: (1) the application does not conform with the legislative path for bringing this issue to the Court; (2) no individual can bring a civil action to enforce criminal law. Justice Rooke also makes some obiter statements on standing which I comment on below.

Continue reading →