Category Archives: Environmental

‘Negative Population Growth’ for Boreal Caribou in Alberta

By: Shaun Fluker

Report Commented On: First Report on the implementation of the Section 11 agreement for the conservation and recovery of the woodland caribou in Alberta (January 19, 2024)

PDF Version: ‘Negative Population Growth’ for Boreal Caribou in Alberta

In late January, Alberta issued the first Report on implementation of the Agreement for the conservation and recovery of the Woodland Caribou in Alberta, signed by Alberta and Canada under section 11 of the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 [SARA] in October 2020. Commentators have noted that the Report reveals little progress by Alberta on protecting what is left of boreal caribou in this province. This criticism is certainly warranted, however the commitments made by Alberta in this Agreement will never result in progress towards halting the march of caribou towards extirpation (see “Canada and Alberta Agree to More Pie-In-The-Sky on Woodland Caribou”). What the Report does make transparent is: (1) Alberta continues to authorize the destruction of caribou habitat despite saying publicly that the government is committed to achieving population recovery; and (2) Alberta’s only real action plan to save caribou is to kill wolves. Continue reading →

Inextricably Linked: Climate Policy and the Oil and Gas Sector’s Closure Liabilities

By: Martin Olszynski

Matter Commented On: Study on Emerging Issues Related to the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources’ Mandate: Climate Change – Canadian Oil & Gas Industry

PDF Version: Inextricably Linked: Climate Policy and the Oil and Gas Sector’s Closure Liabilities

On February 15, 2024, I appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources’ (ENEV) in the context of its study into emerging issues related to its mandate. As has been my practice in the past (see here and here), what follows are my prepared remarks, modified only for formatting purposes and to include hyperlinks to supporting resources where relevant. A recording of the hearing is available here; a hearing transcript should also be available upon translation. Continue reading →

What Does La Rose Tell Us About Climate Change Litigation in Canada?

By: Nigel Bankes, Jennifer Koshan, Jonnette Watson Hamilton, and Martin Olszynski

Case Commented On: La Rose v Canada, 2023 FCA 241 (CanLII)

PDF Version: What Does La Rose Tell Us About Climate Change Litigation in Canada?

The last decade has seen an explosion of domestic climate change litigation around the world and an equally rich body of academic literature examining the case law from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law maintains an excellent data base covering these developments. Important cases in other jurisdictions include the Urgenda decision (Urgenda v Netherlands (2019)) and Shell decision (Milieudefensie et al v Shell (2021)) in the Netherlands, and the 2021 decision of the German constitutional court (Neubauer et al v Germany). Australian environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) have been particularly active in bringing climate change issues before the courts, especially in the context of proposed natural gas and coal projects, most famously in the Sharma case (Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560, appeal allowed, [2022] FCAFC 35). Continue reading →

Locating the Constitutional Guardrails on Federal Environmental Decision Making after Reference re: Impact Assessment Act

By: Nathan Murray and Martin Olszynski

Decision Commented On: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Locating the Constitutional Guardrails on Federal Environmental Decision Making after Reference re: Impact Assessment Act

This post is the seventh ABlawg commentary on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Reference re: Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Reference) decision from October 2023. In the most recent of those posts, one of us briefly noted the majority’s preoccupation with the concept of “adverseness” when delineating the scope of federal environmental jurisdiction under the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (IAA). The majority’s preoccupation with that concept actually pervades the IAA Reference decision. Here, we focus squarely on the majority’s treatment of the concept of “adverseness” and its role in the public interest decision-making stage of federal impact assessment. Continue reading →

Triviality and Significance of Federal Environmental Effects after Reference re: Impact Assessment Act

By: Martin Olszynski

Decision Commented On: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Triviality and Significance of Federal Environmental Effects after Reference re: Impact Assessment Act

This is the sixth ABlawg post regarding the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent opinion in Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Reference) (see the first five posts here). In this post, I address the thorny issue of thresholds, i.e., the level or point at which an effect becomes material or relevant under the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (IAA). Since the opinion’s release last fall, I have read and heard concerns that the majority has imposed some kind of minimum threshold regarding the magnitude of effects required to trigger federal jurisdiction, or that the federal government could only refuse to deem such effects to be in the public interest if they are significant (see here for a thoughtful commentary on the practical problems with such an approach). As noted by Justices Andromache Karakatsanis and Mahmud Jamal in their dissent, however, it has actually long been an interpretive rule – since the Supreme Court of Canada’s environmental law decision in Ontario v Canadian Pacific Ltd, 1995 CanLII 112 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 1031 (Canadian Pacific) – that broadly worded environmental legislation is to be interpreted in a manner that does not capture trivial, or de minimis, impacts (IAA Reference at para 278). Importantly, however, and as I discussed almost a decade ago in “Ancient Maxim, Modern Problems: De Minimis, Cumulative Environmental Effects and Risk-Based Regulation”  (2015) 40-2 Queen’s Law Journal 705, 2015 CanLIIDocs 5272, (“Ancient Maxim, Modern Problems”), non-triviality is a very low bar; between trivial and significant lies a wide spectrum of impacts, which at the very least includes low and moderate impacts. Trivial or de minimis impacts are essentially only those impacts that a regulatory regime could systematically ignore while still obtaining its objectives – they are treated the same as no impacts whatsoever. Continue reading →