At What Stage does the Duty of Self-Accommodation Arise in a Discrimination Analysis?

By: Sahani Samarappuli

PDF Version: At What Stage does the Duty of Self-Accommodation Arise in a Discrimination Analysis?

Case Commented On: United Nurses of Alberta v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABQB 255 (CanLII)

As noted in previous posts (see here), the definition of discrimination on the basis of family status has been extended recently to include recognition of childcare responsibilities (see e.g. Canada (Attorney General) v Johnstone, 2014 FCA 110 (CanLII), SMS Equipment v Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, 2015 ABQB 162 (CanLII), both cases discussed below). However, the point at which employers’ duty to accommodate is triggered remains controversial. In particular, the question remains as to how a complainant’s duty of self-accommodation should be dealt with in the discrimination analysis. Continue reading →

Confusing Equality with Tyranny: Repealing the Statement of Principles

By: Joshua Sealy-Harrington

PDF Version: Confusing Equality with Tyranny: Repealing the Statement of Principles

Matter Commented on: Law Society of Ontario Statement of Principles

Tomorrow, the Law Society of Ontario will vote on a motion to repeal the Statement of Principles (SOP) requirement for Ontario lawyers and paralegals. Many lawyers opposed to the requirement were recently elected to the Law Society’s governing body. But their opposition is, for the most part, disingenuous — pro speech in form, but anti-diversity in substance.

As background, the SOP requirement asks every Ontario lawyer and paralegal to write an annual statement acknowledging their existing legal obligations relating to equality. It seeks to promote reflection on racism in the legal profession. The statement is private. It is never disclosed to, or scrutinized by, the Law Society. Other than acknowledging one’s existing legal obligations, the statement’s content is entirely up to the author. And the Law Society has never indicated that any lawyers or paralegals would be sanctioned for failing to complete their SOP. It is a modest regulatory requirement. Continue reading →

Royalty Certainty for the Oil and Gas Industry?

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Royalty Certainty for the Oil and Gas Industry?

Legislation Commented On: Alberta Bill 12: Royalty Guarantee Act

On June 20, 2019 Alberta’s Legislature gave first reading to Bill 12, The Royalty Guarantee Act. The Bill aims to fulfil a commitment made as part of the United Conservative Party’s (UCP) election platform:

Royalty Guarantee

Recent Alberta governments shook investor confidence with royalty reviews. A United Conservative government will guarantee in law that the royalty regime in place when a well is permitted will remain in place for that project in perpetuity. (at 30)

In the press release accompanying introduction of the Bill, Minister Sonya Savage reiterated the concerns that led to its introduction:

Frequent royalty reviews have had a significant negative impact on the energy industry and our province’s ability to compete with other energy jurisdictions. Alberta has competitive royalty rates and investors need certainty when making long-term decisions that the rates will not change on a whim. This legislation would provide the guarantee that stability isn’t just something we talk about in Alberta, it is the law.

This post examines the current rules in relation to changes in Crown royalties and then considers the scope and effect of Bill 12. Continue reading →

As Bill C-69 Receives Royal Assent, Will the Project List Deliver on the Promise?

By: Sharon Mascher

PDF Version: As Bill C-69 Receives Royal Assent, Will the Project List Deliver on the Promise?

Matter Commented On: Discussion Paper on the Proposed Project List

Last week, Bill C-69 finally passed through the Senate and received Royal Assent. That the legislative process has been long and fraught goes without saying. On its first passage through the Senate, a total of 229 amendments were made to the legislation. While 130 of those amendments were ultimately rejected, Bill C-69 incorporates 99 of them – 62 as proposed by the Senate and 37 with government alterations. This reportedly is “the highest number of amendments on any piece of legislation since at least 1946.” Continue reading →

The Implications of the AUC’s Smith Decision

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Implications of the AUC’s Smith Decision

Decisions commented on: AUC Decision 23756-DOI-2019, Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. Glacier Power Plant Alteration, April 26, 2019; and AUC Decision 24393-D01-2019, International Paper Canada Pulp Holdings ULC Request for Permanent Connection for 48-Megawatt Power Plant, June 6, 2019.

In its Smith decision earlier this year, the AUC concluded that a self-generator could only avoid the general must offer, must exchange obligations imposed by 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) if it fell within one of the prescribed exceptions in the legislative scheme. ABlawg commented on the Smith decision here: Opening a Can of Worms.

In these decisions, two AUC panels have confirmed the Smith decision, and in doing so further explore the implications of Smith for both new generation and for existing generation. Continue reading →