Category: Energy Page 4 of 55

Cases and Decisions Commented On: (1) Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 ABCA 186 (CanLII), (2) Northback Holdings Corporation v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2025 FCA 31 (CanLII), and (3) AER Decision, Northback Holdings Corporation Applications for Coal Exploration Program (CEP) A10123772, Deep Drilling Permit (DDP) 1948547, and Temporary Diversion Licence (TDL) 00497386 May 15, 2025, 2025 ABAER 006

PDF Version: Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Project: Part 3, June 2025

In addition to ABlawg’s coal law and policy series (for the most recent post in that series see here) and our Coal Law and Policy ebook, we have provided occasional posts updating readers on the status of the Grassy Mountain project and litigation related to the project. As the title of the post suggests, this is the third such update following earlier updates in February 2024 and August 2024.

A Radical Departure: Remarks on Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

By Martin Olszynski

On June 19, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Indigenous, Law Reform

By: Martin Olszynski

Matter Commented On: Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

PDF Version: A Radical Departure: Remarks on Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

On Tuesday, June 17^th, 2025, I had the opportunity to appear before the Senate in the context of its study of Bill C-5, Part II of which contains the Building Canada Act. Professor David Wright and I provided an initial analysis of this part of Bill C-5 shortly after it was tabled. As is my regular practice, this post includes my prepared remarks, which expand on some of that earlier analysis. I have also included hyperlinks where useful. In our initial post, Professor Wright asked whether Bill C-5 will allow Canada to ‘move fast and make things’ or ‘move fast and break things’? While it is still too early to answer that question from a project review perspective (the prospects, however, appear increasingly dim), it is now clear that as drafted Bill C-5 breaks fundamental democratic norms, at the least, and that our democracy and the rule of law will be diminished for it.

The AER Panel Dismisses Appeal in Induced Seismicity Case But Reinforces the Case For a Regional Approach

By Nigel Bankes

On April 7, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision Commented On: Obsidian Energy Ltd. Appeal of Environmental Protection Order March 7, 2025, 2025 ABAER 002

PDF Version: The AER Panel Dismisses Appeal in Induced Seismicity Case But Reinforces the Case For a Regional Approach

In this decision, an appeal panel of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) confirmed that the Compliance Liability Management (CLM) Branch had sufficient warrant to issue a remedial Environmental Protection Order against Obsidian on the basis that CLM could reasonably form the opinion that Obsidian’s disposal activities were responsible for induced seismicity events. The decision reveals the complexity of determining cause and effect in cases such as this where there are multiple disposal injectors in the same area. As a result, the decision also supports the need for a proactive regional approach to the use of pore space for disposal (and perhaps other) purposes.

The Questioning of Former Minister Savage: Was the Stay Denied with Conditions or Granted with Conditions?

By Drew Yewchuk

On April 3, 2025

In Energy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented On: Cabin Ridge Project Limited v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 109 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Questioning of Former Minister Savage: Was the Stay Denied with Conditions or Granted with Conditions?

This post relates to the same coal corporation lawsuits I discussed in a February 2025 post: ‘The Public and The Coal Corporations Want to Know: What Was Government Thinking While Messing With Coal Policy?’. In short, there are two lawsuits in which six coal corporations are suing the government of Alberta alleging that regulatory changes removed all reasonable uses of their coal leases. In Cabin Ridge Project Limited v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 53 (CanLII) the Court of Appeal ruled former Minister Savage must attend to be questioned by the coal corporations about the Alberta government’s policy changes, and questioning was set for March 26^th, 2025.The Alberta government has applied for leave to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court has not yet decided Alberta’s leave application.

The Municipal District of Ranchland Stands Strong Against More Coal Exploration

By Nigel Bankes

On March 26, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Ranchland (Municipal District No 66) v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 ABCA 105 (CanLII).

PDF Version: The Municipal District of Ranchland Stands Strong Against More Coal Exploration

The short version of this post is that Justice April Grosse of the Alberta Court of Appeal has granted the MD of Ranchland permission to appeal four questions of law relating to Minister Jean’s cancellation of the coal moratorium and subsequent, but related, decisions of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to reinstate certain coal exploration permits (CEPs). Drew Yewchuk and I examined Minister Jean’s decision to cancel the moratorium here: Coal Moratoriums, They Come and Go. That post provides links to a series of ABlawg posts going back to 2020 dealing with the law and regulation of coal projects in Alberta.

What follows provides context for the decision on this permission to appeal application as well as some analysis of the decision.