ABLawg - - Page 109

Case Commented On: R v Named Person X, 2018 ABQB 827 (CanLII)

In the series “Mission: Impossible” the protagonist Ethan Hunt knows what is at stake. Before every new assignment, a self-destructing tape informs him of his new mission. The message ends with a disclaimer: “as always, should any member of your team be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions.” In serving his state, he knows that the state is a fickle friend: if he is compromised, he cannot expect any assistance. At least Ethan Hunt is fully aware of this before he sets off.

The situation of Named Person X (NPX) in the recent Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision, R v Named Person X, 2018 ABQB 827 (CanLII) is similar to Ethan Hunt’s. NPX is allegedly a police informer, and leaked information that resulted in successful arrests of several people. However, there is a twist: NPX was among those arrested. Just like the Secretary in “Mission: Impossible”, the Crown would “neither confirm nor deny that any informer privilege exists in relation to the Accused [NPX]” (at para 16). NPX filed an application for an order directing the Crown to disclose source handler notes related to NPX’s activity as an informer, and the central issue in Named Person X was whether this application should be granted or whether the notes were protected by informer privilege.

Hearsay? Another Perspective on Farm and Ranch Work and the Alleged Flaws of Bill 6

By Jennifer Koshan

On April 9, 2019

In Labour/Employment

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Hearsay? Another Perspective on Farm and Ranch Work and the Alleged Flaws of Bill 6

Matter Commented On: United Conservative Party Proposal to Repeal Bill 6, the Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Act; Hearsay Podcast of March 19, 2019

Even before the provincial election was called, the United Conservative Party (UCP) announced that it would “make good on a key promise to Alberta’s farm families and repeal Bill 6.” The announcement claims that the Alberta New Democratic Party (NDP) failed to consult farmers in enacting the Bill, resulting in a loss of “public trust with farm and ranch families.” The UCP promises to “immediately launch comprehensive consultations with farmers, ranchers, agriculture workers and others on how best to balance the unique economic pressures of farming with the need for a common sense, flexible farm safety regime.” These consultations are intended to “develop recommendations for the introduction of the Farm Freedom and Safety Act (FFSA), which will be passed into law in 2019.”

Distracted Driving and the Traffic Safety Act

By Shaun Fluker

On April 2, 2019

In Criminal, Statutory Interpretation

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Distracted Driving and the Traffic Safety Act

Case Commented On: R v Ahmed, 2019 ABQB 13 (CanLII)

Alberta added distracted driving offences to the Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000 c T-6 in 2011, and two of these provisions are the subject of this decision by Justice John T. Henderson. The accused was charged under section 115.1(1)(b) for operating a vehicle while looking at his mobile phone. This particular section prohibits driving while holding, viewing or manipulating a hand-held electronic device or a wireless electronic device. The facts were not in dispute at trial, but the traffic commissioner ruled that a mobile phone is not an “electronic device” and thus acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed this decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench. A literal or plain reading of section 115.1(1)(b) does lead one to question the view that a mobile device is not an electronic device, but statutory interpretation is not always a literal exercise – particularly when the provisions themselves are written in a complicated or “inelegant” manner as is noted by the court here. This case is perhaps more about distracted drafting than it is distracted driving.

The Senate, the Oceans Act and Marine Protected Areas

By Nigel Bankes

On March 30, 2019

In Environmental, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Senate, the Oceans Act and Marine Protected Areas

Matter commented on: Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, as passed by the House of Commons, April 20. 2018.

There is a lot of attention focused on the Senate these days, principally in relation to Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, (and the subject of numerous ABlawg posts); but, there are other Bills standing in a long and slowly moving line in that Chamber as well. These Bills include Romeo Saguenash’s private member’s Bill C-262 (also endorsed by the Liberals) to give application to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canadian law (and the subject of an ABlawg post here), but also proposed amendments to the Oceans Act, SC 1996, c 31 to create an expedited process for establishing marine protected areas (MPAs). This blog post focuses on the latter.

A Comment on the Strategically Narrowed Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

By David V Wright

On March 29, 2019

In Climate Change, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: David V. Wright

PDF Version: A Comment on the Strategically Narrowed Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

Document Commented On: Terms of Reference for the Federal Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

Earlier this month, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) released the terms of reference (TOR) for the Strategic Assessment of Climate Change (SA). This post briefly provides commentary on the context behind this development, offers several initial impressions of the TOR, and notes a number of ways to make the most of the process as now prescribed. Overall, the TOR charts a relatively narrow path that misses a critical opportunity to improve coherence across climate law, policy and programs in Canada, including with respect to carbon pricing and provincial climate measures such as those in Alberta.

For those following federal developments on the climate law and policy front, the wait for the TOR was a long one. This is the first development since the discussion paper released last summer. Why it took so long is unclear, though the federal government has obviously had a number of matters to contend with on the climate front, including the Ontario and Saskatchewan carbon price reference cases (the latter discussed in a recent post by my colleague, Martin Olszynski) and the relatively contentious Bill C-69.

Informer Privilege: A Fickle Friend?

Hearsay? Another Perspective on Farm and Ranch Work and the Alleged Flaws of Bill 6

Distracted Driving and the Traffic Safety Act

The Senate, the Oceans Act and Marine Protected Areas

A Comment on the Strategically Narrowed Strategic Assessment of Climate Change