Category: Administrative Law Page 9 of 39

Decision Commented On: Raincoast Conservation Foundation v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 224.

On September 4, 2019, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) granted leave to six of the twelve parties who had applied for judicial review of Cabinet’s decision to re-approve the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project. This post situates this most recent development in the broader TMX context and examines this rare instance of the FCA providing reasons in a leave decision.

Application for Mistrial and Judicial Recusal Denied

By Serena Eshaghurshan

On July 31, 2019

In Administrative Law

By: Serena Eshaghurshan

PDF Version: Application for Mistrial and Judicial Recusal Denied

Case Commented On: R v JNS, 2019 ABQB 557 (Can LII)

In July 2019, the Honourable Mr. Justice Steven N. Mandziuk of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (ABQB) heard an application for a mistrial and his recusal as the presiding judge over a criminal matter. The Applicant, JNS, sought the remedy due to Justice Mandziuk presiding over both his child support case and his criminal trial. Justice Mandziuk declared that there was no evidence or appearance of judicial bias and dismissed the application.

The Bill 12 “Turn off the Taps” Litigation: Justice Hall Orders a Stay in BC’s Action

By Nigel Bankes

On July 23, 2019

In Administrative Law, Constitutional

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Bill 12 “Turn off the Taps” Litigation: Justice Hall Orders a Stay in BC’s Action

Case Commented On: British Columbia (Attorney General) v Alberta (Attorney General), 2019 ABQB 550

This decision concerns Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act, SA 2018, c P-21.5 also known as the “Turn Off the Taps” legislation. I commented on Bill 12 here and commented on the decision of the Kenney Government to bring this legislation into force here. The decision to bring the legislation into force prompted the Attorney General of British Columbia (AGBC) to renew its application to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to have the legislation declared unconstitutional. The Attorney General Alberta (AGAB) responded by bringing an application to strike BC’s application on the basis that the AGBC had no standing to sue for a declaration as to the constitutional invalidity of Alberta legislation. This is Justice Robert Hall’s decision on that application.

The Elephant in the Courtroom Redux

By Shaun Fluker

On July 2, 2019

In Administrative Law, Environmental, Intervenors and Standing

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: The Elephant in the Courtroom Redux

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.

Category: Administrative Law Page 9 of 39

Federal Court of Appeal Provides Reasons in TMX Leave Applications

Application for Mistrial and Judicial Recusal Denied

The Bill 12 “Turn off the Taps” Litigation: Justice Hall Orders a Stay in BC’s Action

The Elephant in the Courtroom Redux

Alberta Court of Appeal Stages a Judicial Intervention on Judicial Interventions