Category: Land Use Page 2 of 3

Conflict in Paradise

On August 3, 2023

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions Commented On: (1) AUC Decision 27589-D01-2023, Nova Solar G.P. Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd., Nova Solar Power Plant and Transmission Connection, July 19, 2023; and (2) AUC letter decision on standing, October 31, 2022 (AUC’s Standing Ruling).

PDF Version: Conflict in Paradise

New and different resource uses may give rise to conflict or competition, and many have been discussed on ABlawg’s pages. Examples include:

(1) competition between natural gas storage operations and conventional oil and gas operation, (see for example Bankes, “Kallisto #2. Competing Uses of Geological Space: Resolving Conflicts Between Oil Production and Natural Gas Storage Interests”);

(2) competition for underground disposal capacity, (see, for example Bankes, “Sharing Geological Pore Space Disposal Capacity” as well as a complex and ongoing regulatory matter involving CNRL and Greenfire Resources before the Alberta Energy Regulator); and

(3) competition between proposed carbon capture and storage operations and a variety of conventional and non-conventional resource activities, (see for example, Ettinger et al, “Alberta’s Carbon Capture & Storage Land Grab And The Potential For Conflicts Of Subsurface Rights”).

Counting Straws: Yahey v British Columbia and the Future of Cumulative Effects Management in Canada

By Martin Olszynski

On July 13, 2023

In Aboriginal, Environmental, Indigenous, Land Use

By: Martin Olszynski

Case Commented On: Yahey v British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 1287 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Counting Straws: Yahey v British Columbia and the Future of Cumulative Effects Management in Canada

Much has already been written about the British Columbia Supreme Court’s ground-breaking decision in Yahey v British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 1287 (CanLII) (also referred to as Blueberry River First Nation, BRFN, or simply Blueberry throughout). In Yahey, the Court agreed with the BRFN that, in the context of BFRN’s traditional territory in Northeastern British Columbia, “the cumulative effects of industrial development authorized by [British Columbia] have significantly diminished the ability of Blueberry members to exercise their rights to hunt, fish and trap in their territory as part of their way of life and therefore constitute an infringement of their treaty rights” (at para 3). My colleague Professor Robert Hamilton and former UCalgary Law JD student (now alumnus) Nick Ettinger wrote two outstanding blogs on the decision when it first came out: a first post summarized the decision, while a second focused on Yahey’s standard for treaty infringement, i.e., “meaningful diminishment”. They also published a law review article on the decision: Robert Hamilton and Nicholas P. Ettinger, “The Future of Treaty Interpretation in Yahey v British Columbia: Clarification on Cumulative Effects, Common Intentions, and Treaty Infringement,” 2023 54-1 Ottawa L Rev 109. In this (very) belated post spurred on by a presentation that I gave at an environmental law conference last month, I focus on the Court’s findings with respect to British Columbia’s approach to resource development, and specifically its failure to effectively manage the cumulative effects associated with oil and gas and forestry. In my view, and as further set out below, these findings and analysis are relevant to every level of government in Canada: federal, provincial, territorial, Indigenous, and municipal.

Annotations of NRCB Review Decisions Under the Agricultural Operations Practices Act

By Michael Wenig

On January 30, 2023

In Land Use

By: Michael Wenig

Matter Commented On: Decisions of the Natural Resources Conservation Board under the Agricultural Operation Practices Act, RSA 2000, c. A-7

PDF Version: Annotations of NRCB Review Decisions Under the Agricultural Operations Practices Act

This post is a heads-up about my recently updated annotations of Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) “review” decisions under the Agricultural Operation Practices Act, RSA 2000, c. A-7 (AOPA).

Part II of AOPA gives the NRCB regulatory authority over Alberta-based “confined feeding operations” (CFOs), which are commonly known as intensive livestock operations. (Part I of the AOPA provides so-called “right-to-farm” protection for “agricultural operations” and a system for resolving nuisance claims by those operations’ neighbours. See e.g. Brenda Heelan Powell, Agricultural Lands – Law and Policy in Alberta (Environmental Law Centre, Nov 2019) at 76.) Before AOPA came into effect in 2002, municipalities were the primary regulators of CFOs through their issuance of development permits. This permitting function is linked to municipalities’ land use planning roles.

Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 10-Year Review Part 3: LARP’s Management Frameworks

By David Laidlaw

On December 20, 2022

In Land Use

By: David Laidlaw

Matter Commented on: Lower Athabasca Regional Plan

PDF Version: Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 10-Year Review Part 3: LARP’s Management Frameworks

This is the third and final post related to the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan’s 10-year review, which was required pursuant to section 6 of the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, […]. Part 1 set out the background necessary to understand Alberta’s land use framework, while Part 2 got into the details of the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP). This part focuses on LARP’s various environmental management frameworks.

Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 10-Year Review Part 2: Alberta’s Regional Plan Development

By David Laidlaw

On October 26, 2022

In Land Use

By: David Laidlaw

Matter Commented on: Lower Athabasca Regional Plan

PDF Version: Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 10-Year Review Part 2: Alberta’s Regional Plan Development

In the development of regional plans, Alberta appoints selected stakeholders to provide advice in the form of a Regional Advisory Council (RAC) in conjunction with opportunities for public consultation, with the provincial Cabinet making the final regional plan, as set out in Part 1 of this post.