ABLawg - - Page 100

Matter Commented On: R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry et al vAdvocate General for Scotland, [2019] UKSC 41, available here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf.

In making its recent decision to nullify Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom waded into deep constitutional water, raising the question of constitutional precedent and arguments about the propriety of judicial intervention in “political” matters. This comment describes the Miller decision and considers it against the backdrop of another huge constitutional controversy that began to unfold in London in 1838.

Clare’s Law: Unintended Consequences for Domestic Violence Victims?

By Jennifer Koshan

On October 18, 2019

In State Responses to Violence

By: Jennifer Koshan and Wanda Wiegers

PDF Version: Clare’s Law: Unintended Consequences for Domestic Violence Victims?

Bill Commented On: Bill 17, Disclosure to Protect Against Domestic Violence (Clare’s Law) Act

On Wednesday the Alberta government introduced Bill 17, the Disclosure to Protect Against Domestic Violence (Clare’s Law) Act. Plans for this law were announced during the spring 2019 election campaign by the United Conservative Party (UCP). Given that the UCP voted against several measures to combat violence against women introduced by the previous NDP government, it is worth exploring why this government might prioritize such a law and what its impacts – both intended and unintended – might be.

Everything You Wish You Didn’t Need to Know About the Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

By Martin Olszynski

On October 17, 2019

In Energy

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Everything You Wish You Didn’t Need to Know About the Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

Matter Commented On: The Alberta Inquiry, OC 125/2019

“Good faith” in this context…means carrying out the statute according to its intent and for its purpose; it means good faith in acting with a rational appreciation of that intent and purpose and not with an improper intent and for an alien purpose; it does not mean for the purposes of punishing a person for exercising an unchallengeable right; it does not mean arbitrarily and illegally attempting to divest a citizen of an incident of his civil status.

Roncarelli v Duplessis, [1959] SCR 121, 1959 CanLII 50 (SCC) at 143 (per Rand J)

Crown Consultation Obligations and a National Infrastructure Corridor: Simple Meets Complex

By David V Wright

On October 15, 2019

In Aboriginal, Energy, Environmental

By: David V. Wright

PDF Version: Crown Consultation Obligations and a National Infrastructure Corridor: Simple Meets Complex

Matter Commented On: National Infrastructure Corridor

Renewed interest in a cross-Canada infrastructure corridor has surfaced in recent months and weeks, including as a federal election issue. Details were thin in the recent Conservative campaign announcement, but a substantial amount of information about a similar concept can be found in a 2017 report from the Senate Committee on Banking Trade and Commerce (the focus of the former is on an ‘energy corridor’ while the focus of the latter and the below-cited article by Sulzenko and Fellows is on a multi-modal infrastructure corridor). That report rightly acknowledges that “such a major undertaking – which would require the accommodation of a multitude of varying interests and priorities – would undoubtedly be difficult to complete, and a number of complex issues – including in relation [to] Indigenous peoples, financing and the environment – would need to be addressed” (p 12). In this post, I provide a brief overview and initial comments in relation to a fundamental “complexity” pertaining to the corridor concept: Crown consultation and accommodation duties with respect to the Indigenous peoples of Canada.

Latest Municipal Utility Appeal Decision by the AUC: Business as Usual

By Dana Poscente

On October 11, 2019

In Energy

By: Dana Poscente

PDF Version: Latest Municipal Utility Appeal Decision by the AUC: Business as Usual

Decision Commented On: Village of Delia: Appeal of Utility Charges by Heide Peterson and Yvon Fournier, October 1, 2019, Alberta Utilities Commission Decision 24678-D01-2019

In this recent municipal utility appeal, Ms. Peterson and Mr. Fournier (the Appellants) requested that the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) disallow all water, sewer, garbage and land fill utility charges imposed by the Village of Delia, including interest, from the time at which they disconnected from municipal utility service to the time of this decision. The AUC found, pursuant to section 43 of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 (MGA), that certain of the appealed charges were discriminatory and ordered Delia to repay them. This post describes the statutory scheme under which the Commission can hear and make orders on such appeals, summarizes the decision, and compares the reasoning and outcome to similar past decisions.

Judges, Parliament, Brexit and Constitutional Change: Echoes of Stockdale v Hansard (1839)

Clare’s Law: Unintended Consequences for Domestic Violence Victims?

Everything You Wish You Didn’t Need to Know About the Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

Crown Consultation Obligations and a National Infrastructure Corridor: Simple Meets Complex

Latest Municipal Utility Appeal Decision by the AUC: Business as Usual