Category: Uncategorized Page 2 of 9

Worrying About Reclamation and Abandonment Obligations in the Context of Property Assignment Consents

On February 22, 2023

In Energy, Natural Resources, Provincial Court, Uncategorized

By: Nigel Bankes and Drew Yewchuk

Case commented on: Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Harvest Operations Corp, 2023 ABKB 62 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Worrying About Reclamation and Abandonment Obligations in the Context of Property Assignment Consents

This decision is principally about when a court can or should grant partial summary judgment. For that reason alone, we anticipate that it will be appealed. But the underlying concern that led to this litigation was (and still is) the decision of Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) to contest assignments pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) between Harvest Operations as the vendor and Spoke Resources as the purchaser. CNRL and Harvest were parties to some 170 agreements affected by the PSA, including 133 land agreements, 30 facility agreements, and 7 service agreements.

Procedural Fairness When Challenging Timeline Extensions for Freedom of Information Requests

By Drew Yewchuk

On May 2, 2022

In Energy, Oil & Gas, Privacy, Uncategorized

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decision Commented On: Re Energy, Order F2022-20, 2022 CanLII 29391 (AB OIPC)

PDF Version: Procedural Fairness When Challenging Timeline Extensions For Freedom of Information Requests

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) Order F2022-20 shows how easy it is for public bodies to drag the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP) process out to prevent timely transparency, even where there is little or no plausible justification for the public body to withhold records.

F2022-20 relates to the same FOIP request as Blades v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2021 ABQB 725 (CanLII) (Blades), a decision I wrote about here. The request in question is an attempt to get government records explaining the Alberta government’s decision to revoke the 1976 Coal Development Policy for Alberta.

ABlawg: Year in Review 2020

By Admin

On December 31, 2020

In Uncategorized

By: Admin

PDF Version: ABlawg: Year in Review 2020

Dedication

This year in review post is dedicated to the memory of Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., O.C., O.B.C., who passed away suddenly on December 7, 2020. As the In Memoriam page on the website of his firm Arvay Finlay notes, Joe was “one of the most brilliant and successful constitutional and civil liberties lawyers of his time.” He represented parties in “some of the defining cases of our generation including, among many others, medical assistance in dying, access to legal safe injection sites, the right of workers to associate in pursuit of workplace goals, and LGBTQ rights.”

For many bloggers on this site, Joe was both a hero and a role model.

ABlawg is pleased to provide this compilation of highlights from 2020, summarizing and synthesizing bloggers’ contributions in different areas of law during the past year. Overall, it was a busy year that included important commentary on a range of matters, including, of course, various dimensions of COVID-19.

Western Canadian Lithium as a Critical and Strategic Mineral for Clean Tech Battery Storage Technologies

By Rudiger Tscherning

On November 25, 2020

In Uncategorized

By: Rudiger Tscherning and Brady Chapman

PDF Version: Western Canadian Lithium as a Critical and Strategic Mineral for Clean Tech Battery Storage Technologies

Matters Commented On: The Canadian Minerals and Metals Plan 2019; Review of the Alberta Mineral Development Strategy 2002 by the Alberta Mineral Advisory Council; Québec Plan for the Development of Critical and Strategic Minerals (2020-2025)

Critical and strategic minerals (CSMs), including lithium, are essential for the transition of the global economy to “net-zero.” The COVID-19 pandemic will only serve to accelerate this transition. Calls for rebuilding economies on ambitious and sustainable climate principles have become louder since the pandemic began. At a multilateral level, the April 2020 Petersberg Climate Dialogue established clear directions towards a sustainable and climate-focused post-pandemic recovery. Such recovery plans are also echoed in the European Commission’s Next Generation EU recovery plan, and the September 2020 Government of Canada’s Speech from the Throne, both of which set out clear impulses towards developing clean tech industries as part of post-pandemic economic recovery.

However, CSMs, such as lithium, have been recognized for their importance well before the pandemic. In 2019, the International Renewable Energy Agency reported that global sales of electric vehicles, which rely heavily on lithium-ion batteries, increased significantly from 500,000 units in 2015 to over 2 million units in 2018. The Bank of Canada recently cited the International Energy Agency’s projection that there will be 120 million plug-in hybrid or battery electric vehicles on the world’s roads by 2030. In Canada, the share of all electric vehicles amounted to approximately 2.3%, or 90,100 vehicles, of the total vehicle market in 2018, with 51% consisting of battery electric vehicles. In addition, the rapid scaling-up of wind and solar renewable electricity generation is not only vital for decarbonizing global energy systems, but will crucially depend on electricity storage technologies. Lithium-ion batteries are efficient and have fast charging and discharging rates, making them ideal for the large-scale implementation of renewable energy sources to meet baseload power demands.

What is Non-Adversarial Advocacy?

By Deanne Sowter

On April 27, 2020

In Uncategorized

By: Deanne Sowter

PDF Version: What is Non-Adversarial Advocacy?

There is no provision in the Federation of Law Societies Model Code that specifically regulates non-adversarial advocacy. The Code has an Advocacy section (R 5.1) and it distinguishes advocacy in an adversarial process, but it does not have a corresponding section for advocacy in a non-adversarial process. There is no universal definition of non-adversarial advocacy. In 2016, I conducted empirical research on advocacy in the family law context, and drawing from that I argued that the Code needs to be updated to include non-adversarial advocacy. (See here.) In that study, I talked to collaborative lawyers and family lawyers who have a settlement-oriented practice. Those processes inform the type of advocacy expected and required. However, not all dispute resolution processes can be neatly packed into one category or the other, nor do all disputes involve sides that subscribe to the same approach to advocacy. In this post, I question whether it is the process that distinguishes adversarialness.