ABLawg - - Page 110

Case Commented On: Frank v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1

[N]o one is born a good citizen; no nation is born a democracy. Rather, both are processes that continue to evolve over a lifetime. Young people must be included from birth. A society that cuts itself off from its youth severs its lifeline… (Kofi Annan, 1998)

Introduction

Earlier this year the Supreme Court of Canada issued its most important voting rights case in many years, Frank v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1. Frank secured the right to vote for expatriate Canadians – a meaningful achievement – but the case is more significant for its reasoning and implications for the future of voting rights than it is for its result. The majority in Frank made it clear that the right to vote is qualified only by citizenship and that any limits on the right to vote must be justified under s 1 of the Charter. Frank has laid the foundation for a challenge to the last significant restriction on the right to vote, age. A challenge to the voting age – even just to lower it to 16 – promises to have a profound and beneficial impact on Canadian politics and political discourse.

Gross Overriding Royalty Payable on 100% of Production

By Nigel Bankes

On June 10, 2019

In Civil Procedure, Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Gross Overriding Royalty Payable on 100% of Production

Case Commented On: Obsidian Energy Partnership v Grizzly Resources Ltd, 2019 ABQB 406

In this decision, Master J.T. Prowse granted summary judgment in favour of Obsidian (formerly Penn West Petroleum) against Grizzly Resources, concluding that Obsidian’s gross overriding royalty interest (GORR) of 2.75% was payable on 100% of production from the encumbered properties rather than on Grizzly’s working interest in the properties.

Alberta Court of Appeal Broadens the Scope of Offences for Conditional Discharges

By Serena Eshaghurshan

On May 29, 2019

In Criminal, Sentencing

By: Serena Eshaghurshan

PDF Version: Alberta Court of Appeal Broadens the Scope of Offences for Conditional Discharges

Case Commented On: R v Chowdhury, 2019 ABCA 205

In May 2019, the Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) heard an appeal for a dangerous driving causing bodily harm case. The appellant, Mr. Chowdhury, sought a conditional discharge, but the sentencing Judge refused to grant one. Mr. Chowdhury appealed his sentence and was surprisingly granted a conditional discharge, the first of its kind for this offence.

Alberta Court of Appeal Stages a Judicial Intervention on Judicial Interventions

By Scott Carrière

On May 27, 2019

In Administrative Law

By: Scott Carrière

PDF Version: Alberta Court of Appeal Stages a Judicial Intervention on Judicial Interventions

Case Commented On: R v Quintero-Gelvez, 2019 ABCA 17

In January, the Alberta Court of Appeal (the Court) allowed an appeal from a sexual assault conviction in R v Quintero-Gelvez, involving an issue of judicial intervention. The matter before the Court was whether repeated comments and interventions by the trial judge inhibited defence counsel from cross-examining the complainant as he was entitled, preventing the accused from making full answer and defence. The Court, in ordering a new trial, declined to take up the question of bias but agreed trial fairness was compromised.

Setting the Record Straight on Federal and Provincial Jurisdiction Over the Environmental Assessment of Resource Projects in the Provinces

By Martin Olszynski

On May 24, 2019

In Constitutional, Energy, Environmental

By: Martin Olszynski and Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Setting the Record Straight on Federal and Provincial Jurisdiction Over the Environmental Assessment of Resource Projects in the Provinces

Matter Commented On:Bill C-69: An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to ament the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Alberta’s new premier has recently threatened to sue the federal government over Bill C-69, the Liberal government’s attempt to restore some credibility to Canada’s environmental assessment regime. More specifically, Premier Kenney has recently been asserting that section 92A of the Constitution Act, 1982, which gives the provinces jurisdiction over the development of non-renewable natural resources, precludes the federal government from assessing what the Premier describes as “provincial projects”: “[BillC-69] gives a new federal agency the power to regulate provincial projects, such as in situ oil sands developments and petrochemical refineries, which are entirely within a province’s borders and already subject to provincial regulation. It disregards a landmark Supreme Court ruling on jurisdiction and the balance between federal and provincial powers spelled out in the Constitution — including section 92A in which provinces have exclusive authority over non-renewable resource projects.” In making these comments, the Premier contradicts almost three decades of settled jurisprudence with respect to the federal and provincial division of powers over the environment generally, and federal jurisdiction to conduct environmental assessments specifically.

Taking Youth Seriously: Reconsidering the Constitutionality of the Voting Age

Gross Overriding Royalty Payable on 100% of Production

Alberta Court of Appeal Broadens the Scope of Offences for Conditional Discharges

Alberta Court of Appeal Stages a Judicial Intervention on Judicial Interventions

Setting the Record Straight on Federal and Provincial Jurisdiction Over the Environmental Assessment of Resource Projects in the Provinces