Administrative Law

Case Commented On: Zoocheck Canada Inc v Alberta (Minister of Agriculture and Forestry), 2019 ABCA 208 (CanLII)

Lucy the Elephant lives at the Edmonton Valley Zoo and, for more than a decade, her advocates have been calling on government officials to facilitate her transfer to a warmer climate. She is a long-time resident at the Edmonton Zoo (since 1977), and zoo officials responsible for her well-being assert that Lucy is well-cared for at the zoo and that it is not in her best interest to be moved. Her advocates dispute this position, and there is a dedicated campaign for an independent scientific assessment of Lucy that would produce an expert veterinarian opinion on whether she can and/or should be moved. In addition to this battle of medical experts, Lucy’s advocates have appeared before Alberta courts seeking to use the force of law to get the Edmonton Zoo to acquiesce on the move of Lucy. They have been unsuccessful at each turn. The first set of proceedings was almost 10 years ago, and I commented on them in Lucy the Elephant v. Edmonton (City) and in The Elephant in the Courtroom. The focus of this comment is the more recent proceedings and, in particular, the Court of Appeal’s ruling that Lucy’s advocates do not have standing to engage in legal proceedings to challenge the renewal of a permit for the Edmonton Zoo.

Alberta Court of Appeal Stages a Judicial Intervention on Judicial Interventions

By Scott Carrière

On May 27, 2019

In Administrative Law

By: Scott Carrière

PDF Version: Alberta Court of Appeal Stages a Judicial Intervention on Judicial Interventions

Case Commented On: R v Quintero-Gelvez, 2019 ABCA 17

In January, the Alberta Court of Appeal (the Court) allowed an appeal from a sexual assault conviction in R v Quintero-Gelvez, involving an issue of judicial intervention. The matter before the Court was whether repeated comments and interventions by the trial judge inhibited defence counsel from cross-examining the complainant as he was entitled, preventing the accused from making full answer and defence. The Court, in ordering a new trial, declined to take up the question of bias but agreed trial fairness was compromised.

Standing to Seek Judicial Review of a Statutory Decision

By Shaun Fluker

On May 22, 2019

In Administrative Law

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Standing to Seek Judicial Review of a Statutory Decision

Case Commented On: Kozina v Knecht, 2019 ABQB 355

This is a decision by Mr. Justice Brian R. Burrows ruling that the applicant (Kozina) has standing to seek judicial review of a decision made by the Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board (Board). It seems that the applicant’s standing was contested at the outset of the judicial review hearing on March 29, and thus Justice Burrows initially heard submissions on standing. The merits of the judicial review application will now proceed at a later date. This ruling is of interest to me because of my ongoing work on standing to commence proceedings and also because the case involves the relationship between judicial review and a statutory right of appeal.

(Final?) Brief re: Bill C-69 to the Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources

By Martin Olszynski

On April 30, 2019

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental

By: Martin Olszynski

Legislation Commented On:Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

PDF Version: (Final?) Brief re: Bill C-69 to the Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources

The Senate Committee on Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources (the Committee) is in the final stages of its hearings into Bill C-69, which if passed will replace the current federal environmental assessment regime pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, SC 2012 c 19 s 52 (CEAA, 2012). What follows is a slightly edited version of the brief that I submitted to the Committee last week, following my appearance before it on April 9, 2019, here in Calgary.

I am pleased to submit this brief to the Committee as part of your review of Bill C-69 – and the proposed Impact Assessment Act (IAA) in particular. Much has been said and written about Bill C-69. In addition to this brief, I myself have written or co-written the following articles/blogs since Bill C-69 was passed in the House of Commons:

My own contributions have been spurred less by a desire to defend the Bill and more to simply set the record straight. That is the spirit that animated my remarks to the Committee on April 9, 2019 and that is at the core of this brief, which is organized as follows:

How Should We Assess Transmission Upgrades When They are Requested by the DFO?

By Nigel Bankes

On March 21, 2019

In Administrative Law, Utility Regulation

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: How Should We Assess Transmission Upgrades When They are Requested by the DFO?

Decisions Commented On: (1) AUC Decision 23339-D01-2019, Alberta Electric System Operator Needs Identification Document Application AltaLink Management Ltd. Facility Applications Provost Reliability Upgrade Project, and January 22, 2019; and (2) AUC Decision 23393-D01-2019, Alberta Electric System Operator Needs Identification Document Application AltaLink Management Ltd. Facility Application Fincastle 336S Substation Upgrade, February 14, 2019.

These two decisions deal with the Alberta Utilities Commission’s (AUC) assessment of a needs identification document (NID) to build new transmission in a situation where the NID was prepared on the basis of a system access service request (SASR) originating from the incumbent distribution facility owner (DFO) – in this case, FortisAlberta. Both cases triggered a dissenting opinion from AUC Vice Chair Anne Michaud. In each case the principal difference between the dissent and the majority turned on the Alberta Electric System Operator’s (AESO) responsibility to assess the reasonableness of the need for system access where the impetus to prepare the NID came from the DFO. In both cases, Vice Chair Michaud takes the view that if the AESO fails to properly scrutinize the need for the DFO’s SASR request then there is no public interest assessment of such a request. In both cases Vice Chair Michaud would have sent the NID back to the AESO with the suggestion “that the NID application incorporates an analysis of the need for the project that includes a weighing of the expected increase in reliability against the potential impacts of the project, having regard for the fact that the AESO is not required in all circumstances to respond to a SASR with a proposed transmission solution.” (Provost Decision at para 313).

The argument that greater scrutiny may be required in the case of a NID prepared in response to a SASR request from a DFO draws on the understanding that a DFO (unlike the AESO) does not have a public interest mandate and may therefore have an incentive to overbuild to increase its rate base – unless dis-incented from doing so by the new approach to capital investment in Phase II of performance based regulation – a doubtful proposition at best. New transmission is expensive and the cumulative effects on consumer bills significant. An important element of assessing the need to upgrade existing transmission facilities is the applicable reliability standard: the higher the reliability standard the greater the capital expense. What is that standard? Who gets to set that standard and should it be the same for all that are connected to the transmission system?