Category: Intervenors and Standing Page 1 of 6

Oil and Gas Consortium Intervenes in the Jurisdictional Challenge to the Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

Case Commented On: Ecojustice Canada Society v Alberta, 2020 ABQB 364 (CanLII)

In July 2019, the Lieutenant Governor in Council commissioned the Allan Inquiry with Order in Council OC 125/2019, issued under section 2 of the Public Inquiries Act, RSA 2000, c P-39. The Order in Council directs Commissioner Steve Allan to investigate and report on any anti-Alberta energy campaigns that are supported, in whole or in part, by foreign organizations. Several ABlawg posts have been critical of the Allan Inquiry, commenting on its mandate, process, interference with the freedom of expression protected by the Charter, and lack of transparency. Ecojustice has brought an application for judicial review seeking an order quashing Order in Council 125/2019 and prohibiting the Allan Inquiry from proceeding. This post comments on a decision by Justice Karen M. Horner granting an application made by an “Industry Consortium” for leave to intervene in this proceeding.

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.

Applications for Party Status in a Permission to Appeal Application

By Nigel Bankes

On April 24, 2018

In Energy, Intervenors and Standing, Utility Regulation

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Applications for Party Status in a Permission to Appeal Application

Bill Commented On: Balancing Pool v ENMAX Energy Corporation, 2018 ABCA 143 (CanLII)

This decision deals with applications by two parties (the Balancing Pool and TransAlta) to be accorded party status (or, failing that, intervenor status) in permission to appeal applications launched by TransCanada Energy, ENMAX and Capital Power relating to one aspect of the long-running line loss proceedings before the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). Justice Paperny’s decision on these preliminary matters merits reporting on ABlawg for two reasons. First, it provides an example of a Court taking the unusual step of granting party status in relation to that most preliminary of applications, a permission to appeal application (rather than at the subsequent stage where leave has been granted). Second, it provides an opportunity to update the status of the line loss file (AUC Proceeding 790).

The Unfortunate Incident of the TWU Intervention Decisions

By Alice Woolley

On September 7, 2017

In Intervenors and Standing, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Alice Woolley

PDF Version: The Unfortunate Incident of the TWU Intervention Decisions

Cases Commented On: Trinity Western University, et al. v Law Society of Upper Canada, SCC file no 37209; Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University, et al, SCC file no 37318

On July 27, 2017 Justice Wagner denied intervenor status to 17 of 26 applicants in the Trinity Western University cases before the Supreme Court, including the applications of all LGBTQ+ identifying groups. Following an immediate and negative public reaction, particularly on social media, Chief Justice McLachlin used her scheduling power to add a second day to the TWU hearings, and then extended intervention status to the 17 applicants whom Justice Wagner originally rejected (Both orders can be found here). Two days later, Justice Wagner gave an interview to the Globe and Mail explaining that he had “no intention to exclude” members of the LGBTQ+ community, and that he and the Chief Justice had decided together how best to proceed after “he was made aware of concerns on social media”. The Supreme Court also issued a News Release explaining what had occurred.

Federal Court Grants Alberta Leave to Intervene in TransMountain Proceedings: Has Alberta Earned the Privilege?

By Shaun Fluker

On June 2, 2017

In Aboriginal, Intervenors and Standing, Oil & Gas

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Federal Court Grants Alberta Leave to Intervene in TransMountain Proceedings: Has Alberta Earned the Privilege?

Case Commented On: Tsleil-Waututh Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 102 (CanLII)

In Tsleil-Waututh Nation v Canada (Attorney General) Justice Stratas deals with two leave to intervene motions filed in the consolidated Kinder Morgan TransMountain pipeline judicial review proceedings currently before the Federal Court of Appeal. Justice Stratas grants Alberta’s application to intervene on the presumption that the Crown represents the interest of Albertans in the proceedings (at paras 11-27) and denies the application to intervene made by the Tsartlip First Nation on the basis it is really an application for judicial review under the guise of an intervention and its submissions would be duplicative of existing parties (at paras 35-54). Both applications were opposed by existing parties – the Tsleil-Waututh Nation opposed Alberta’s intervention and Kinder Morgan opposed the Tsartlip intervention. This comment focuses on the reasoning given by Justice Stratas in granting Alberta intervener status in these proceedings, and in particular I question why Alberta was not asked to justify or explain its basis for intervening in these proceedings. The privilege of representing the public interest is something which must be earned, and it isn’t clear to me Alberta has done so in this case.