ABLawg - - Page 133

National Security Law Lab Students Offer Reform Recommendations on Bill C-59, An Act Respecting National Security Matters

On April 19, 2018

By: Michael Nesbitt

PDF Version: National Security Law Lab Students Offer Reform Recommendations on Bill C-59, An Act Respecting National Security Matters

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-59, An Act Respecting National Security Matters, 2017; Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, SC 2015, c 20

In the Fall of 2016, students in the University of Calgary, Faculty of Law’s National Security Law Lab responded to the government’s calls for feedback on the ever-so controversial Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, SC 2015, c 20 (commonly known as Bill C-51). As with any large Bill analyzed by thoughtful law students, there was much that they liked and, in this case, much more that they did not like. The students decided that their efforts were best spent analyzing law reform proposals that both drew back aspects of Bill C-51 and added heft (and legal protections) to it, knowing that the then-new Liberal government was sure to table a responsive Bill, as was their campaign promise.

A Bill to Restrict the Interprovincial Movement of Hydrocarbons: a.k.a. Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity [Act]

By Nigel Bankes

On April 18, 2018

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: A Bill to Restrict the Interprovincial Movement of Hydrocarbons: a.k.a. Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity [Act]

Bill Commented On: Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act, Bill 12 [Alberta], First Reading, April 16, 2018

This post examines two key questions: (1) What does Bill 12 do? and (2) What are the constitutional underpinnings of the Bill? The post does not examine whether or not the Bill is consistent with Alberta’s obligations under internal trade agreements or Canada’s obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement. But first, some brief background to provide context for this unusual (and unusually titled) Bill.

Disappointment at the Bank: The Fish Habitat Banking Provisions of Bill C-68

By Dave Poulton

On April 17, 2018

In Environmental, Fisheries Regulation, Protection of Species

By: Dave Poulton

PDF Version: Disappointment at the Bank: The Fish Habitat Banking Provisions of Bill C-68

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-68: An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence

Over the past weeks several ABlawg contributors have posted their summaries and commentary on the suite of environmental assessment and protection legislation introduced by the federal government in the form of Bills C-68 and C-69. The series started with Martin Olszynski’s overview of the two pieces of legislation, to which readers are referred for background to my contribution.

The purpose of this post is to examine fish habitat banking, a fisheries management tool that for the first time stands to be legislated through the amendments to the Fisheries Act, RSC 1985, c F-14 found in Bill C-68. Habitat banking is a mechanism to enable the provision of habitat “offsetting”. To understand habitat banking, therefore, it is necessary to start with the concept of offsetting.

Asking the Right Questions about Amendments to the Fisheries Act

By Martin Olszynski

On April 16, 2018

In Environmental, Fisheries Regulation, Protection of Species

By: Martin Olszynski, Brett Favaro and Nicolas Lapointe

PDF Version: Asking the Right Questions about Amendments to the Fisheries Act

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-68, An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act

On February 5, 2018, the federal government tabled Bill C-68, An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act. This Bill is the product of roughly two years of study and public consultation by both the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) – study and consultation that was promised by the then-opposition Liberals during the last federal election campaign. That promise was itself a response to the previous Conservative government’s changes to the Fisheries Act, RSC 1985, c F-14, as part of its overhaul of the federal environmental regime back in 2012. With respect to the Fisheries Act specifically, the previous government took direct aim at the habitat protection provisions of that legislation (section 35). While some of the changes were positive, such as broadening protection to include not just “works and undertakings” but also “activities”, most of them were widely panned (see e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and here). Whereas the original prohibition protected all fish and fish habitat, post-2012 only those fish (and their habitat) that were part of, or supported, a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery are protected. The level of protection has also been reduced: whereas the previous version of section 35 protected against “harmful alterations, disruption, or destruction” of fish habitat, the 2012 version only protects against the “permanent alteration or destruction” of fish habitat.

Foreclosing Mortgagees’ Liability for Tenants’ Security Deposits

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On April 13, 2018

In Administrative Law, Landlord/Tenant

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Foreclosing Mortgagees’ Liability for Tenants’ Security Deposits

Case Commented On: CIBC Mortgages Inc v Bello, 2018 ABQB 176 (CanLII)

This appeal from an order of a Tenancy Dispute Officer of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) is worth noting for several reasons. First, it appears that the question of whether a mortgagee becomes a “landlord” under the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2003, c R-17.1 (RTA) upon foreclosing on leased residential premises had not been addressed before. This is an important question for tenants looking to recover their security deposits and for foreclosing mortgagees who have not received those security deposits from their mortgagor. Second, the standard of review to be applied on an appeal from a Tenancy Dispute Officer’s order has been controversial within the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. Some decisions have held that correctness is the standard, whereas others, including this one, hold that the standard is one of reasonableness. Third, the court’s clear statement and elaboration of the purpose of the RTA–to address the power imbalance between landlords and tenants–should be helpful to tenants in future cases. Fourth, the decision is a good example of statutory interpretation and eminently suitable for a first year law school course on legislation. Finally, insofar as Tenancy Dispute Officers are not required to give reasons as part of their written orders, the occasional appeals of those orders (which must be accompanied by a transcript of the Tenancy Dispute Officer’s oral reasons) offer rare glimpses into the legitimacy of the dispute resolution services provided by the RTDRS.