ABLawg - - Page 115

Opening a Can of Worms: What are the Applicable Market Rules for Generation Where the Generator Fails to Use the Entire Output?

Decision Commented On: EPCOR Water Services Inc., EL Smith Solar Power Plant, February 20, 2019, Decision 23418-D01-2019

This decision raises important questions as to the applicable rules for self-generation where the generator seeks to export any surplus to the grid. The decision deserves to be read by all those engaged in self-generation beyond the micro and small levels, including self-generation that benefits from designation as an industrial system.

Administrative Segregation and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

By Myrna Tuttle

On March 4, 2019

In Constitutional, Criminal

By: Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle

PDF Version: Administrative Segregation and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Case Commented On: R v Prystay, 2019 ABQB 8 (CanLII)

On January 4, 2019, Madam Justice Dawn Pentelechuk found that Mr. Ryan Prystay’s lengthy stay in administrative segregation at the Edmonton Remand Centre breached section 12 of the Charter. Consequently, she granted him enhanced credit of 3.75 days for each day spent in administrative segregation.

Administrative segregation is used in remand centres to keep an inmate away from the general population for safety or security reasons. It is not intended to be used as a punishment and can be indefinite, while disciplinary segregation is imposed as a penalty and has to be for a specified period of time.

Unlike in disciplinary segregation, inmates in administrative segregation have the same rights and privileges as other inmates, however, the operational reality is that one’s experience in either form of segregation is drastically different from that of inmates in the general population (at para 27). Inmates in either form of segregation are kept in a cell alone for 23 hours a day. They have two half-hour blocks outside of their cell during each 24 hour period where they can shower, exercise, watch television or use the phone in the “fresh air” room. Inmates stay alone during those activities. Administrative segregation inmates may have visits via CCTV (closed circuit television) (at paras 28-29).

On October 16, 2018, the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, introduced in the House of Commons Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the federal correctional system in a number of ways including ending administrative segregation and disciplinary segregation and creating “structured intervention units.”

Lessons from Redwater: Discard the AbitibiBowater Test and Legislate Super Priority for the Regulator

By Jassmine Girgis

On March 1, 2019

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Constitutional, Oil & Gas

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: Lessons from Redwater: Discard the AbitibiBowater Test and Legislate Super Priority for the Regulator

Case Commented On: Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII)

Environmental cleanup costs are a natural consequence of operating in the oil and gas industry. Provincial regulations ensure these costs are borne by the company responsible for them, and these regulations work if that company is solvent. An insolvent company, however, cannot bear the costs of outstanding environmental orders, which leaves those costs to the company’s creditors or to the public.

The goal should be, and fairness dictates, that the debtor always covers the cost, regardless of its solvency, but that requires amending the governing legislation, preferably to give the regulator (in this case, the Alberta Energy Regulator (Regulator), and the equivalent regulators in other provinces) a super priority. Knowing the Regulator has a super priority in a bankruptcy will compel the adjusting creditors to modify their agreements ex ante, ensuring, in turn, that companies comply with regulations and have enough capital to cover environmental costs as they arise. This solution is better than our current system, in which creditors must wait for a court to apply the three-part test from Newfoundland and Labrador v AbitibiBowater Inc, 2012 SCC 67 (CanLII) (AbitibiBowater test) to determine who has priority, potentially leaving them to deal with the consequences ex post.

On a matter this important and this costly, a matter that has notable public policy considerations and far-reaching implications for private parties, both sufficient environmental protection as well as certainty in adherence to the legislated priorities, must be the ultimate goals. The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (“BIA”) does not currently provide enough environmental protection, which may compel courts to compensate through the AbitibiBowater test. It is hard to predict the outcome of the test and, depending on its application to a given set of facts, it undermines the BIA priority scheme. Throughout the proceedings of Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (commonly known as the Redwater case), in three levels of court, there were five judgments. Eleven judges applied the same test and six of them ruled in favour of the Regulator, while five ruled in favor of the secured creditor. This much disagreement over one set of facts should indicate that these issues should not be handled by the courts through the application of the AbitibiBowater test. The required certainty in this area must come from Parliament by way of legislative amendment to clarify a super priority charge in favour of the Regulator in the BIA.

Judging Former Colleagues: A Collection of Justice Woolley’s ABlawg Posts

By Admin

On February 28, 2019

In Uncategorized

By: Admin

PDF Version: Judging Former Colleagues: A Collection of Justice Woolley’s ABlawg Posts

Our former colleague Alice Woolley is being formally sworn in as a Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench today. We take this opportunity to highlight Justice Woolley’s contributions to ABlawg over the ten years that she was a contributor, while we still called her “Alice”.

Alice wrote a clean 100 posts for ABlawg between December 2007 and July 2018. Actually, while the number may be clean, the titles were as colourful as Alice’s language, as we noted in our first brief farewell to her in ABlawg’s 2018 year in review post, including Regulating Lawyer-Client Sex, Law Schools’ Dirty Little Secret, and Defending Rapists, to name a few. This is a good time to mention that we are not really judging her, either for leaving us and becoming a judge, or for her posts themselves. We were simply trying to come up with a Woolley-esque title.

Many of Alice’s posts had over 2000 hits on ABlawg – she had a very impressive number of readers. Her most viewed posts were: When Judicial Decisions Go from Wrong to Wrongful – How Should the Legal System Respond? (over 5300 hits); What has Meads v Meads wrought? (cowritten with Jonnette Watson Hamilton, with over 3400 hits); and The Incarcerated Complainant: Submissions to the Minister of Justice (also with over 3400 hits). The Woolley posts that received the most comments were What has Meads v Meads wrought?; What Ought Crown Counsel to do in Prosecuting Sexual Assault Charges? Some Post-Ghomeshi Reflections; and Defending Rapists.

Alice’s large readership was no doubt sparked by the controversy of the topics she blogged on, as well as her clearly articulated positions on the issues they raised. In addition to the posts noted above on sexual assault, vexatious litigants, and legal education (see also her posts on Trinity Western Law School here, here, here, and here), she blogged on lawyers’ and judges’ ethics in a range of areas (see e.g. Top Ten Legal Ethics posts here, here, here and here), the regulation of the legal profession (see e.g. Ontario’s Law Society: Orwell’s Big Brother or Fuller’s Rex? and A National Code of Conduct?) and administrative law more generally (see e.g. her posts on the legacy of Dunsmuir here, here, here and here). And then there was the Volkswagen Scandal.

Alice also blogged in a regular column for Slaw, which ABlawg regularly cross-posted to reach an even broader range of readers (for Amy Salyzyn’s Slaw post on Alice’s contributions, see here).

We will greatly miss Alice’s ABlawg posts, especially at times like this when the issues of the day call for out analyses of questions like – in relation to Michael Cohen – Is a Bad Lawyer a Bad Person? and – in relation to Jody Wilson Raybould – whether Prosecutors [are] Ministers of Justice? (although Alice had a different spin on that issue). We are looking forward to blogging on Justice Woolley’s decisions, and wish her all the best on this special day.

To subscribe to ABlawg by email or RSS feed, please go to http://ablawg.ca

R v Jarvis, A Technologically Mindful Approach to the Meaning of Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

By Emily Laidlaw

On February 26, 2019

In Criminal, Privacy

By: Emily Laidlaw

PDF Version: R v Jarvis, A Technologically Mindful Approach to the Meaning of Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Case Commented On: R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 (CanLII)

Last week the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its long-awaited judgment R v Jarvis 2019 SCC 10 (CanLII) (Jarvis) and it is potentially a game-changer. The case focuses on a singular issue that is the core of privacy law: the meaning of the reasonable expectation of privacy (REP). What makes this case stand out from all the others is that it deals directly with frictions that have existed for a long time in how to conceptualize REP, namely the nature and extent to which we have a REP in public, how evolving technologies factor into conceptualizing REP in public, and issues of sexual integrity and privacy.