By: Mark Mancini and Martin Olszynski
PDF Version: Reviewing Regulations Post-Vavilov: Ecology Action Centre v Canada (Part II)
Case Commented On: Ecology Action Centre v Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2021 FC 1367 (CanLII)
This is the second post on the Federal Court’s recent decision in Ecology Action Centre v Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2021 FC 1367 (CanLII). For the background on this decision, see Martin Olszynski’s first post here.
By: Martin Olszynski
Case Commented On: Ecology Action Centre v Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2021 FC 1367 (CanLII)
The applicants sought judicial review in Federal Court of the “Regional Assessment of Offshore Oil and Gas Exploratory Drilling East of Newfoundland and Labrador” (the Offshore Exploratory Regional Assessment), initiated as a “regional study” under the previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19, s 52 (CEAA, 2012) but converted into a “regional assessment” under the current Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (IAA) when the latter came into force in 2019. The Offshore Exploratory Regional Assessment and Report were prepared by a committee established by both the federal and provincial governments and submitted to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada (the Minister). The applicants also sought judicial review of the subsequently promulgated Regulations Respecting Excluded Physical Activities (Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Exploratory Wells) (the Offshore Exploratory Regulations) pursuant to paragraph 112(1)(a.2) of the IAA, the effect of which was to exclude offshore exploratory drilling from undergoing individual impact assessments on a go-forward basis. Both applications were dismissed.
By: Drew Yewchuk
PDF Version: Procedural Fairness When Challenging Timeline Extensions for Freedom of Information Requests
Decision Commented On: Blades v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 ABQB 725 (CanLII)
The recent decision in Blades v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 ABQB 725 (CanLII) (Blades) relates to two issues ABlawg has previously covered. First, the challenges of getting government records in a timely manner using the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP). Prior posts on FOIP have discussed the challenges with the information request process, and the challenges presented by the review process at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Second, the Alberta government’s decision to revoke the 1976 Coal Development Policy for Alberta. See the list of coal-related ABlawg posts listed at the top of this post. Looking past those specifics, Blades is a judicial review decision about an administrative body’s obligation of procedural fairness and the right to be heard by the administrative decision-maker.
By: Aimee Huntington, Niall Fink & Peter Shyba
PDF Version: Stakeholders Expected Consultation on the Coal Policy Rescission: Was There a Legal Duty?
Cases Commented On: Blades et al v Alberta; TransAlta Generation Partnership v Regina, 2021 ABQB 37 (CanLII)
This is the sixth ABlawg post on Alberta Energy’s decision to rescind the 1976 Coal Development Policy for Alberta (the “Coal Policy”) in May of 2020 (the “Rescission”). Much has happened since May. At the time of writing, Energy Minister Sonya Savage has temporarily reinstated the Coal Policy with a commitment to “engage with Albertans in the first half of 2021 about the long-term approach to coal development in Alberta.” A Coal Policy Committee has been established, although details on public consultation remain unclear. It is also unclear whether the reinstatement renders moot the case of Blades et al v Alberta, an application for judicial review by two cattle ranchers initiated in July of 2020 (the “Blades Application”). Finally, it is still unclear how the reinstatement will affect approvals for coal exploration granted between rescission and reinstatement (on this point, see Nigel Bankes’ previous post). What is clear is that the government’s duty to consult stakeholders on changes to the Coal Policy will remain contentious in the foreseeable future.
The Blades Application highlighted multiple potential sources of an obligation to consult stakeholders, including provisions in the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c A-26.8 (ALSA), the common law, and constitutional claims raised by Indigenous intervenors. This post considers one particular source for this obligation: the legitimate expectations of stakeholders in the South Saskatchewan Region. We do so in light of the recent treatment of the doctrine of legitimate expectations in TransAlta Generation Partnership v Regina, 2021 ABQB 37 (CanLII).
By: Howard Kislowicz and Robert Hamilton
Case Commented On: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII)
In our last post, we laid out some background on how the standard of review applies in cases involving the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult and accommodate (DTCA) Indigenous peoples. We argued that the changes brought by Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII) with respect to statutory appeals – where a statute provides that a government decision may be appealed to a court – might allow legislatures to insulate the decisions of the executive by subjecting them to a “palpable and overriding error” standard of review rather than a reasonableness standard. In this post, we look at the other, more common kind of case that arises in administrative law: judicial scrutiny of government decisions through an application for judicial review. Here, the standard of review analysis differs.
In applications for judicial review, Vavilov establishes a general presumption that the standard of review for an administrative decision will be reasonableness (at paras 23–32). However, it also carves out some exceptions to this presumption, in which the standard of review will be correctness. The relevant exception for this post is for questions regarding “the scope of Aboriginal and treaty rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982” (at para 55). Important ambiguities persist about what this means for the DTCA. On one hand, DTCA litigation does not determine Aboriginal rights. The DTCA was designed to apply where the Crown considered an action that could impact an Aboriginal right that had not yet been adjudicated. Though it was later extended to established rights, it remains a procedural duty on the Crown rather than an Aboriginal right per se). If this is the case, this would suggest that the correctness exception does not include DTCA issues. On the other hand, the DTCA is a constitutional obligation understood as a limit on the exercise of sovereignty; it shares much in common with the other issues to which Vavilov applies the correctness standard. We argue that the logic supporting the existence of the constitutional exception in Vavilov also supports the application of the correctness standard to a broader range of DTCA issues than is currently the practice. This post considers how Vavilov may have changed considerations of judicial reviews arising in DTCA contexts.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén