Category: Environmental Page 46 of 53

Another step in implementing ALSA: the review and variance provisions and compensation for compensable takings

The Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c A-26.8 (ALSA) is a work in progress: see my earlier blog: “ALSA and the property rights debate in Alberta: a certificate of title to land is not a ‘statutory consent’” We won’t know how this beast or angel will turn until we see the first approved plans (see my blog on the draft Lower Athabasca Plan (“The proof of the pudding: ALSA and the Draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan“) and a complete set of implementing regulations. Here we have the next piece of the puzzle in the form of a set of regulations primarily concerned to implement the 2011 amendments to the ALSA (Bill 10, the Alberta Land Stewardship Amendment Act, 2011) which I blogged at “Regulatory chill, weak regional plans, and lots of jobs for lawyers: the proposed amendments to the Alberta Land Stewardship Act” .

I wasn’t exactly a fan of Bill 10. I thought that it created too many opportunities to put roadblocks in the way of implementing plans. I don’t believe that it is necessary to provide for both plan reviews and variance applications, and I am still of the view that the compensable taking provisions of Bill 10 will foster needless and expensive litigation.

The Elephant in the Courtroom

By Shaun Fluker

On September 1, 2011

In Administrative Law, Environmental, Intervenors and Standing

PDF version: The Elephant in the Courtroom

Case Considered: Reece v Edmonton (City), 2011 ABCA 238

In March 2011 the Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Zoocheck Canada, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Tove Reece (collectively referred to as Zoocheck here) from Justice John Rooke’s August 2010 decision to strike Zoocheck’s application for a declaration that the City of Edmonton is violating the Animal Protection Act, RSA 2000 c. A-41 by keeping Lucy the Elephant in its Valley Zoo. See my previous ABlawg comment Lucy the Elephant v Edmonton (City) for some analysis of Justice Rooke’s decision (Reece v Edmonton (City), 2010 ABQB 538), the background concerning Lucy’s health problems and living conditions in the zoo, the applicable legislative framework, and the City’s motion to strike the Zoocheck application. In its August 2011 Reece v Edmonton (City) decision the Court of Appeal dismisses the Zoocheck appeal, with the majority written by Justice Frans Slatter upholding the finding at the Court of Queen’s Bench that the application for a declaration constitutes an abuse of process. In her lengthy dissenting opinion, Madame Justice Catherine Fraser rules the Zoocheck application is not an abuse of process and should go to trial. This Court of Appeal decision is noteworthy to me for three reasons: (1) the sharp contrast of legal theory underlying the majority and the dissent; (2) the environmental ethic informing Justice Fraser’s dissent; and (3) the comments made by Justice Fraser concerning the availability of public interest standing.

First Nation treaty obligations should inform the interpretation of discretionary powers under the Species at Risk Act

By Nigel Bankes

On August 18, 2011

In Aboriginal, Environmental

PDF version: First Nation treaty obligations should inform the interpretation of discretionary powers under the Species at Risk Act

Case commented on: Adam v Canada (Environment), 2011 FC 962

Woodland caribou are listed as threatened under the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (SARA). The species (and particular herds of the species) are threatened by the fragmentation of their habitat principally due to resource developments including coal mining (see West Moberly First Nation v British Columbia (Chief Inspector of Mines), 2011 BCCA 247), oil and gas exploration, oil sands projects (mining and in situ) and forestry projects, and by the linear land use disturbances often associated with these projects including seismic lines, roads, transmission lines and pipelines. The species is also negatively impacted by increased predation.

But what should we do about this? The answer of governments in Alberta, British Columbia and the federal government seems to be as little as possible and as slowly as possible – for fear that any real action to recover the various herds will be too disruptive of the governments’ shared resource development agendas.

Compensation for cancelled oil sands rights under the terms of the draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan

By Nigel Bankes

On May 18, 2011

In Environmental, Property, Protection of Spaces

PDF version: Compensation for cancelled oil sands rights under the terms of the draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan

Documents commented on: Draft Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 2011 – 2021, Strategic Plan and Implementation Plan; Proposed Lower Athabasca Integrated Regional Plan Regulations

In an earlier blog on a draft version of the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c.A-26.8 (ALSA) I suggested that I might provide a further blog on the implications of the Plan (if implemented) for existing property interests. This is that blog but with a focus on oil sands rights that will be cancelled if the Plan is implemented as proposed. The Draft LARP also addresses other Crown resource interests that might be affected including timber harvesting interests.

A single window for the permitting of energy projects in Alberta: who will look out for the chickens?

By Nigel Bankes

On May 16, 2011

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

PDF version: A single window for the permitting of energy projects in Alberta: who will look out for the chickens?

Report commented on: Enhancing Assurance: Developing an integrated energy resources regulator, a discussion document, May 2011

In a discussion paper released on May 9, 2011 under a covering message from Premier Stelmach, the provincial government has announced its intention to create a single window for the permitting of energy projects in the province. The proposal envisages a single new board that will have all of the current responsibilities of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) plus the following additional responsibilities (as they pertain to energy projects including conventional oil and gas, oilsands, and coal – and in the future perhaps mining):

1. The responsibilities currently vested in Alberta Environment under the terms of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, (EPEA) RSA 2000c. E-12, and the Water Act, RSA 2000, c.W-3 to conduct EIAs, issue licences and authorizations under the Water Act and EPEA and to deal with reclamation and remediation on private land.

2. The responsibilities currently vested in Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) to issue public land dispositions including mineral surface leases, and to deal with reclamation and remediation on public land.

Does this make sense?