ABLawg

Case and Bill Commented On: Egale Canada v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 394 (CanLII); Bill 9, Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, 2^nd Session, 31st Legislature

PDF Version: The Nuclear Option: An Update on Alberta’s Legislation Targeting Trans and Gender Diverse Youth

On November 18, 2025 the UCP government introduced Bill 9, which seeks to amend three statutes that were passed last year restricting the rights of trans and gender diverse youth. The Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 invokes s 33 of the Charter, such that if the Bill is passed, the three statutes will apply notwithstanding several Charter rights and freedoms, the Alberta Bill of Rights, RSA 2000, c A-14, and the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5. This is the second time s 33 has been used in recent weeks, with Bill 2, the Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B?0.5, invoking s 33 to end the teachers’ strike and impose a contract on them in late October (see an ABlawg post on Bill 2 by Shaun Fluker et al here).

The Queue-Jumping Problem with Mandamus: Northback v the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

By Drew Yewchuk

On November 18, 2025

In Access to Information, Administrative Law, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented On: Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta (Environment and Protected Areas), 2025 ABKB 617 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Queue-Jumping Problem with Mandamus:Northback v the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

In Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta (Environment and Protected Areas), 2025 ABKB 617 (CanLII), Northback Holdings Corporation (Northback), (formerly known as Benga Mining Limited) sought a mandamus order from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench that would require the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) to complete their review of the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas’ response to access requests made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SA 2000 c F-25 (FOIP). The Court of King’s Bench dismissed the application, finding that three years was not unreasonable delay in light of the OIPC’s lack of resources and workload, and that an order would have caused inequitable queue jumping.

Major Projects and the Building Canada Act: New list of PONIs or PHONIs?

By David V Wright

On November 14, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Statutory Interpretation

By: David V. Wright

Matter Commented On: Building Canada Act, SC 2025, c 2, s 4

PDF Version: Major Projects and the Building Canada Act: New list of PONIs or PHONIs?

This week, Prime Minister Carney announced a second tranche of major projects for fast-tracking consideration under the new Building Canada Act, SC 2025, c 2, s 4 (BCA). This short post provides an update on the context and then presents a draft glossary that tries to make sense of the unusual terminology and various types of projects and concepts falling within the increasingly broad mandate of the new Major Projects Office (MPO).

Ponzi Scheme Payouts as BIA Preference Payments

By Jassmine Girgis

On November 7, 2025

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: My Mortgage Auction Corp (Re), 2025 BCSC 1520

PDF Version: Ponzi Scheme Payouts as BIA Preference Payments

When an insolvent debtor pays one creditor over others, it undermines the goal of ensuring a fair and equitable distribution to the bankrupt’s creditors, which is one of the goals of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA), and it disrupts the statutory scheme of distribution set out in the BIA (see my previous posts on BIA preferences here and here).

Mine 14: It’s Worse Than We Thought

By Nigel Bankes

On November 6, 2025

In Access to Information, Administrative Law, Environmental

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: Responsive Records to Access to Information Requests re Mine 14 Decision-Making

PDF Version: Mine 14: It’s Worse Than We Thought

An earlier ABlawg post described the manner in which Rob Morgan, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) unlawfully intervened in the Mine 14 adjudicative process then under the conduct of AER Hearing Commissioners. At the time we suggested that the CEO’s decision might have been the result of political pressure brought to bear on Mr. Morgan. The access to information requests discussed in this post strengthen that supposition and also provide evidence of improper communication between Mr. Morgan (and others at the AER) with Vitor Marciano the Chief of Staff of Brian Jean, Minister of Energy and Minerals.