The Rate Treatment of the Costs of Acquisition of a Utility Distribution System

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Rate Treatment of the Costs of Acquisition of a Utility Distribution System

Decision Commented On: AUC Decision 24405-D01-2019, Generic Proceeding to Review Rate Treatment of Distribution System Acquisition Costs Under Performance-Based Regulation, September 6, 2019

From time to time utility distribution systems change hands. In particular, in recent years we have seen investor owned distribution utilities purchasing municipally owned distribution systems and distribution systems owned by rural electrification associations (REAs) and gas co-operatives. The AUC convened this Generic Proceeding through Bulletin 2019-03 of March 12, 2019 to consider the rate treatment of the acquisition costs of a utility within the context of performance based regulation (PBR).

This post begins with brief summaries of PBR and the regulation of distribution systems. It then turns to examine the list of issues identified by the AUC in this proceeding. Continue reading →

The 2018/2019 Year in Access to Justice Issues on ABlawg

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The 2018/2019 Year in Access to Justice Issues on ABlawg

The Canadian Bar Association’s Access to Justice Week in Alberta runs from September 28-October 5, 2019. This annual event is meant to highlight the ongoing inequality in access to legal services and legal dispute resolution mechanisms in Canada. Many Canadians are unable to protect their rights and interests in our legal system. This means those on the lower economic rungs are subject to the law but rarely protected by it – a black mark on the rule of law in Canada. The full list of events can be accessed at the website here.

This is a summary of ABlawg posts dealing with access to justice issues from September 2018 to September 2019. These posts covered important issues on access to justice issues, and I start by following up on the four indicator issues discussed in my post from last year. Continue reading →

The AUC Invites Submissions on the Self-Supply Provisions of Alberta’s Electricity Legislation

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The AUC Invites Submissions on the Self-Supply Provisions of Alberta’s Electricity Legislation

Matter Commented On: Consultation on the issue of power plant self-supply and export, AUC Bulletin 2019-16, September 13, 2019

The Electric Utilities Act, SA 2003, c E-5.1, (EUA; and regulations) and the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, RSA 2000, c H-16, (HEEA) oblige generators in Alberta to offer their generation to the power pool and to exchange energy through the pool. There are number of exceptions to these requirements but in a series of recent decisions the AUC has observed that these exceptions are narrowly framed. These decisions are EPCOR Water Services Inc., EL Smith Solar Power Plant, February 20, 2019, Decision 23418-D01-2019; AUC Decision 23756-DOI-2019, Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. Glacier Power Plant Alteration, April 26, 2019; AUC Decision 24393-D01-2019, International Paper Canada Pulp Holdings ULC Request for Permanent Connection for 48-Megawatt Power Plant, June 6, 2019; and AUC Decision 24126-D01-2019, Keyera Energy Ltd, Cynthia Gas Plant Power Plant Application, June 25, 2019. I commented on those decisions in Opening a Can of Worms and here and here. Continue reading →

W(D) Strikes Again!

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: W(D) Strikes Again!

Case Commented On: R v Ibrahim, 2019 ONCA 631 (CanLII)

W(D), [1991] 1 SCR 742, is entrenched in our justice system. This seminal Supreme Court of Canada decision provides a tight three-pronged approach to the application of reasonable doubt to the oft divergent evidence from the prosecution and the defence. W(D) has been considered, re-considered, and applied over 10,100 times since its release in 1991. It serves as a continual source of discussion and inspiration for scholars like me. Although the principle in and of itself is not overly complex, it is in the application of the principle to complex and unique scenarios that can raise unforeseen or even novel W(D) issues. In this post, I will consider R v Ibrahim, 2019 ONCA 631, a recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal, tackling the thorny issue of applying W(D) to objective mens rea offences. This will also require a detailed discussion on objective and subjective mens rea. The purpose of this robust and far reaching discussion is not to outline the differences between the two forms of liability but to appreciate the similarities. Although objective and subjective mens rea have differing aspects and sightlines, they are part of a continuum of awareness, which is key to understanding what makes conduct a crime. Such exploration is necessary to expand our understanding of why – and how – W(D) matters. For more background on subjective and objective mens rea, read my previous article on “The Subjective/Objective Debate Explained.” Continue reading →

Police Information Check, Vulnerable Sector Check and Privacy Rights

By: Myrna El Fahkry Tuttle

PDF Version: Police Information Check, Vulnerable Sector Check and Privacy Rights

Case Commented On: Edmonton (Police Service) v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2019 ABQB 587 (CanLII)

This case comes shortly after our Centre (Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre (ACLRC)) published a report entitled Collection, Storage and Disclosure of Personal Information by the Police: Recommendations for National Standards (ACLRC Report) which tackled similar issues to those decided upon by the Court of Queen’s Bench.

In this case, the appellant, Edmonton Police Service (EPS), sought judicial review of portions of a decision of Adjudicator Teresa Cunningham from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP). The Adjudicator had ordered EPS: (1) not to use AB’s personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP (2) not to disclose AB’s personal information in contravention of Part 2 of FOIP; and (3) to notify her and AB within fifty days of receiving these orders that EPS would comply with them (at para 5). Continue reading →