Category Archives: Administrative Law

A Rock and a Hard Place

Case considered: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2009 ABCA 171

PDF version: A Rock and a Hard Place

In its 2006 decision in ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB, now the Alberta Utilities Commission) had no jurisdiction to allocate proceeds on the sale of a utility asset to ratepayers where the sale of that asset resulted in no harm to ratepayers in terms of either rates or service. For a bare majority of the Court, Justice Bastarache held that the rights to assets rest without qualification with the utility. Continue reading →

Encouraging Complaint Procedures in Professional Regulation

Case Considered: Acupuncture Committee v. Wanglin, 2009 ABCA 166

PDF version: Encouraging Complaint Procedures in Professional Regulation

Oversight of health professionals in Alberta occurs through a modified form of self-regulation under the authority of the Health Disciplines Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-2. Section 9(1) of the Act provides for the establishment of committees to govern each health discipline, and subsections (3) and (4) provide that a majority of the members of each committee shall either be engaged or registered in that discipline (whichever applies). Regulatory oversight of those committees is then provided by the Health Disciplines Board.

Continue reading →

The protection of potable ground water through a purposive or objective approach to regulation

Case Considered: ERCB Decision 2009-029, CCS Corporation, Section 40 Review and Variance of Application No. 1515213, Class 1b Waste Disposal Scheme, Well 00/09-01-048-14W5M, Brazeau River, March 24, 2009

PDF version: The protection of potable ground water through a purposive or objective approach to regulation

There are at least five reasons to read and blog on this decision. First, it is very rare for the ERCB (“the Board”) to issue a reasoned decision on an application relating to a disposal well. Others include ERCB D 90-17 and D2002-055. The Board deals with most such decisions administratively. Typically there will be no reasoned decision and the general public will not have a clue that the Board has just approved a proposal to inject oilfield waste or acid gas into a geological formation unless they happen to live within a fairly circumscribed radius of the well. Other well operators are far more likely to receive notification than the general public. Second, the decision deals with a topic of crucial societal importance, the protection of potable groundwater and how to ensure that. Third, the decision contains a very interesting discussion of two different approaches to regulation. One approach (which we will term the prescriptive approach) seeks to set certain prescriptive standards that any project must meet in order to be approved. This approach works on the basis that if the proponent complies with that standard, the desired regulatory objective (e.g. protection of groundwater) will be achieved. The other approach (which we will term the purposive or objective approach) requires the applicant to meet the desired regulatory objective but affords the applicant greater discretion as to how it achieves that objective. Fourth, the decision offers some interesting comments on the interrelationship and respective responsibilities of the ERCB and Alberta Environment. And fifth it is important to look at this decision for what it might tell us about the Board’s approach to the regulation of disposal operations associated with carbon capture and storage.

Continue reading →

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (and other, more mixed, metaphors): and a prediction as to the role of power and influence on law-making in the province.

Cases Considered: ATCO Midstream Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2009 ABCA 41.

PDF Version: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (and other, more mixed, metaphors): and a prediction as to the role of power and influence on law-making in the province.

The cases are legion in which the Energy Resources Conservation Board, supported by the Court of Appeal, has denied standing to public interest interveners, First Nations (e.g. Dene Tha’ First Nation v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2005 ABCA 68) and fellow-travellers on the grounds that they lack an adequate legal interest in the subject matter of the application. What is interesting about this case is that, this time, the ox that is gored is a sacred cow. Two sacred cows in fact; a leading provincial utility and gas processor (ATCO), and a petrochemical interest (NOVA) that the province spawned. At a formal level the result might be celebrated in terms of respect for the neutrality of the law and equality before the law. Respect may be tempered if we think the rule to be a bad rule.

Continue reading →

Don’t you forget about me: Remembering the rest of administrative law after Dunsmuir

Cases Considered: Bear Hills Charitable Foundation v. Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission 2008 ABQB 766; East Prairie Métis Settlement v. Alberta (Métis Settlements Ombudsman) 2009 ABQB 31.

PDF Version: Don’t you forget about me: Remembering the rest of administrative law after Dunsmuir

In March 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, in which it rearticulated the appropriate approach to identifying and applying the standard for judicial review of administrative decisions. The significance (or not) of this re-articulation has been discussed elsewhere on ABlawg (see here and here). What perhaps needs to be better understood, however, is that in rearticulating the standard of review, the Supreme Court did not change other principles of administrative law. Two recent decisions of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench indicate that there may be some confusion on this point. In one case, the Dunsmuir analysis was used by the Court to consider a question of administrative procedure, even though procedural questions are not properly subject to standard of review analysis. In another case, the Dunsmuir analysis was used by the Court to review a decision properly characterized either as procedural or non-dispositive which, again, makes the use of a Dunsmuir analysis inapt.
Continue reading →