ABLawg

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.

The Right to Support for Adult Children with Disabilities

By Jennifer Koshan

On February 22, 2019

In Uncategorized

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: The Right to Support for Adult Children with Disabilities

Case and Bill Commented On: Ryan v Pitchers, 2019 ABQB 19 (CanLII); Bill 28, the Family Statutes Amendment Act 2018

As Laura Buckingham noted in an ABlawg post in December 2018, Alberta’s Bill 28, the Family Statutes Amendment Act 2018, made three key amendments:

creating legislated rules for property division for separating common-law couples;
closing a gap in child support legislation for adult children with disabilities; and
repealing the Married Women’s Act, RSA 2000, c M-6.

The second of these amendments was recently considered in Ryan v Pitchers, 2019 ABQB 19 (CanLII). In this case, a mother brought a constitutional challenge to the pre-amendment version of the Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5 (FLA), which did not allow disabled children of unmarried parents to obtain child support once they turned 18 and were not attending school full-time. The mother’s argument was that the definition of child in the FLA violated the equality guarantee in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government did not defend the case given the pending legislative amendment in Bill 28, and although the father raised constitutional counter-arguments, the mother’s claim was successful.

Although the decision may seem like a foregone conclusion, the section 15 analysis of Madam Justice Carolyn Phillips has some interesting features that we will comment on in this post.

A Stressful Legal System Creates Vexatious Self-Reps

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 21, 2019

In Access to Justice, Human Rights, Vexatious Litigants

By: Drew Yewchuk & Christine Laing

PDF Version: A Stressful Legal System Creates Vexatious Self-Reps

Case Commented On: Davis v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2019 ABQB 6 (CanLII)

Davis v Alberta (Human Rights Commission) is a judicial review of a decision by the Acting Chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to dismiss three complaints filed by Ms. Davis with the AHRC. There are no significant developments in human rights law in this decision, but it offers a good opportunity to consider the impact of administrative delays in dispute resolution mechanisms on individuals, especially self-represented ones. Davis also offers an example where the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench was invited to find a self-represented litigant vexatious for the purposes of a costs decision.