University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Category: Protection of Spaces Page 1 of 3

Standing in the Athabasca: AER Denies Nature Procedural Personhood in Alberta

By

On June 1, 2026

In Environmental, Protection of Spaces, Responsible Energy Development Act

By: Hunter Folster and Shane Lethaby

Matter Commented On: Decision by AER re: Request for Regulatory Appeal filed on behalf of the Athabasca River Basin, 22 October 2025.

PDF Version: Standing in the Athabasca: AER Denies Nature Procedural Personhood in Alberta

In February 2025, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) provided public notice that it had an application from Canadian Natural Upgrading Limited (CNUL) for the renewal of the Jackpine Oilsands Mine, located beside the Athabasca River in northeastern Alberta. In response, the Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA), the Keepers of the Water (the Keepers), and the Athabasca River Basin submitted a Statement of Concern (“SOC”, see here) to the AER, each as a “directly and adversely affected person” pursuant to sections 36 and 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA), SA 2021, c R-17.3. In March 2025, the AER informed the filers of the SOC that the AER approved the renewals without a public hearing, declining to rule on the Athabasca’s legal status because it deemed such a determination “not necessary” after considering the content of the filed concerns (see here at 3). In April 2025, Ecojustice filed a request on behalf of the Athabasca River for a regulatory appeal of the AER’s decision to approve the renewals without a hearing (see here).

Read More

Kananaskis Conservation Pass

By

On June 7, 2021

In Environmental, Protection of Spaces, Statutory Interpretation

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Kananaskis Conservation Pass

Ministerial Order Commented On: Ministerial Order 51/2021 (Environment and Parks)

On May 27, the Minister of Environment and Parks (Jason Nixon) issued Ministerial Order 51/2021 to impose a fee to access Kananaskis Country. This new access fee applies to many popular parks and recreational areas in Kananaskis Country such as West Bragg Creek, Barrier Lake, Elbow Falls, Evans Thomas Creek, Spray Lakes, and Highwood Pass. Payment of the fee provides the purchaser with a Kananaskis Conservation Pass. The geographic scope of the fee requirement is curiously both over and under inclusive in relation to its name. The boundary map on the Alberta parks website (and attached to Ministerial Order 51/2021) indicates the access fee applies to areas outside of what is commonly known as Kananaskis Country (e.g. portions of the Bow Valley Wildland Park east of Canmore, including Grotto Canyon and Mount Yamnuska) and – as was pointed out by Nathan Schmidt (JD 2021) here – the fee does not apply to the McLean Creek area which is clearly within Kananaskis Country. This post critically examines the legislative changes made to implement the Kananaskis Conservation Pass requirement.

Read More

Towards Normative Coherence in the International Law of the Sea for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

By

On February 1, 2018

In Law of the Sea, Protection of Spaces, Protection of Species

By: Anna-Maria Hubert and Neil Craik

PDF Version: Towards Normative Coherence in the International Law of the Sea for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

Document Commented On: International legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, A/RES/72/249, provisionally available as document A/72/L.7

This past November, based on the recommendations of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) established under General Assembly Resolution 69/292, the UN General Assembly agreed in Resolution 72/249 to convene an intergovernmental conference “to consider the recommendations of the preparatory committee on the elements and to elaborate the text of an international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, with a view to developing the instrument as soon as possible” (para 1).

Read More

Triggering Federal Impact Assessment: Lessons from Down-Under

By

On May 29, 2017

In Environmental, Protection of Spaces, Protection of Species

By: Sharon Mascher

PDF Version: Triggering Federal Impact Assessment: Lessons from Down-Under

Report Commented On: Expert Panel on the Review of Federal Environmental Assessment Processes, Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada

On April 5, 2017, the Expert Panel on the Review of Federal Environmental Assessment Processes released a report entitled Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada proposing major reforms to Canada’s federal environmental assessment processes. Professor Arlene Kwasniak has provided some background and an overview of key aspects of the report. Professor Shaun Fluker and Drew Yewchuk have commented on the Panel’s response to concerns raised by the University of Calgary’s Public Interest Law Clinic on behalf of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Southern Alberta Chapter in relation to discretion, transparency and accountability.

The focus of this post is to comment on the Panel’s recommendations relating to the first of three fundamental questions it considered – what should require federal impact assessment (IA)? In answering this question, the Expert Panel reached the overall conclusion that “[t]here should be an appropriate threshold for effects on federal interests so that a trivial impact does not trigger IA. This threshold, defined as a consequential impact, should be tied to the sustainability framework.” To achieve this outcome, the Expert Panel recommends three different triggering mechanisms for projects, plans and policies clearly linked to matters of federal interest. The Expert Panel notes that Australia takes a similar approach, with environmental assessments required when a proposed action is “likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance.” This post explores the similarities and differences between the Panel’s recommendations and the approach taken in Australia to ask what lessons can be learned from the Australian experience.

Read More

Municipal Government Board Rules on Development Impacts to the G8 Legacy Wildlife Underpass in the Bow Valley

By

On March 9, 2017

In Municipal Law, Protection of Spaces

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Municipal Government Board Rules on Development Impacts to the G8 Legacy Wildlife Underpass in the Bow Valley

Case Commented On: Town of Canmore v M.D. of Bighorn No. 8, 2017 ABMGB 10

Say again? The Municipal Government Board created by the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 to adjudicate on municipal affairs such as linear property assessment, annexation, subdivision, and inter-municipal disputes has ruled on a significant wildlife issue in the Bow Valley? And not just any wildlife issue – a dispute concerning the functionality of the G8 Legacy Wildlife Underpass – a key wildlife connectivity feature located just east of Canmore and built with funds provided from the G8 Economic Summit hosted in Kananaskis during June 2002. How can this be? Well really, it should not be. There is a longstanding and seemingly bitter municipal dispute ongoing between the MD of Bighorn and Canmore over urban development in the Bow Valley, and the Board has just ruled in favour of proposed development by the MD of Bighorn for the hamlet of Dead Man’s Flats. However, the dispute between the MD of Bighorn and Canmore over development is just smoke and mirrors for what is really at stake here – the integrity of the G8 Legacy Wildlife Underpass as a highly used connectivity feature that allows wildlife to avoid crossing the highway while moving through the human-congested Bow Valley. With all due respect to the members of the Municipal Government Board who heard this matter and deliberated on the issues, I think the Board accepted pie-in-the-sky solutions to a serious and escalating land use problem in the Bow Valley. In my humble opinion the Board ought to have declined jurisdiction to hear this dispute. For reasons set out below, I suggest the Lieutenant Governor in Council should refer this to the Natural Resources Conservation Board pursuant to section 4(f) of the Natural Resources Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c N-3. 

Read More

Page 1 of 3

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén