ABLawg

Legislation commented on: Cannabis Act, SC 2018, c 16

In a previous blog post, I summarized the new federal, provincial, and municipal laws pertaining to cannabis. One of the key policy issues for all three levels of government is the impact that legalization will have on young people. For example, the federal Cannabis Act has as two of its stated purposes to “protect the health of young persons by restricting their access to cannabis” and to “protect young persons and others from inducements to use cannabis” (section 7). In furtherance of these goals, the federal law decriminalized cannabis possession for individuals who are 18 years of age or older, with an exception for young people in possession of small quantities. All provinces other than Quebec and Alberta have increased this age to 19, which corresponds with provincial laws respecting alcohol consumption. However, Quebec’s incoming government recently promised to raise its legal possession age to 21.

Saskatchewan Land Titles Decision Calls Out for Appellate Review

By Nigel Bankes

On November 30, 2018

In Property

By: Nigel Bankes and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Saskatchewan Land Titles Decision Calls Out for Appellate Review

Case Commented On: Registrar of Titles and Great West Life Assurance Company and Primrose Drilling Ventures Ltd, 2018 SKQB 290.

This decision deals with the power of the registrar to correct an error made back in the chain of title, the effect of a registrar’s caveat, and the status of a purchaser where a title is encumbered by a registrar’s caveat. Unfortunately, Justice Kovach has, in our view, reached incorrect conclusions on each of these issues. We hope that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has the opportunity to correct these errors.

The Alberta Law Reform Institute Begins Project Selection

By Admin

On November 28, 2018

In Uncategorized

Website of the Alberta Law Reform Institute

PDF Version: The Alberta Law Reform Institute Begins Project Selection

By: Barry Chung

Since 2016, the Institute has received over 50 law reform suggestions from the public, legal community and various service organizations. There was a wide variety of topics that ranged from the appointment of Provincial Court Judges, Indigenous Peoples and reconciliation, autonomous vehicle legislation, and Business Corporations Act compliance to name just a few.

While the majority of these topics are important and worthy of consideration, only a few will make it through ALRI’s rigorous selection process.

Implementing UNDRIP: some reflections on Bill C-262

By Nigel Bankes

On November 27, 2018

In Aboriginal, International Law

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Implementing UNDRIP: some reflections on Bill C-262

Bill Commented On: Bill C-262, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

This post comments on Bill C-262 adopted by the House of Commons on May 30, 2018. The Bill is currently in the Senate awaiting debate in a very packed fall sitting. The post is based on a presentation that I made to the Conference on Indigenous Solutions to Environmental Problems held at the Banff Centre, Banff Alberta, November 9 – 12^th 2018 on the Treaty 7 territory of the Stoney Nakoda First Nation.

Part I offers some preliminary comments on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration or UNDRIP). Part II describes Canada’s bumpy road to the endorsement of the Declaration. Part III examines the subject of latest step in that endorsement, namely the government’s support of MP Romeo Saganash’s private member’s bill, Bill C-262.

My main conclusion is that the Bill strikes a judicious balance between affording the Declaration some immediate “application” in the laws of Canada, and the creation of a process that will, over time, give greater effect to the Declaration within the Canadian legal system and in doing so slowly decolonize Canadian law and the Canadian legal mind. My perception of the balanced nature of the Bill means that I do not share the views expressed by some (see, for example, Dwight Newman and Ken Coates here) to the effect that the Bill is overly simplistic and will shift a lot more power to the courts.

Food for thought: Judgment of the European Court of Justice on Capacity Market Issues

By Nigel Bankes

On November 21, 2018

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Food for thought: Judgment of the European Court of Justice on Capacity Market Issues

Case Commented On: Tempus Energy Ltd v European Commission, Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), 15 November 2018, Case T-793/14.

Those engaged in the challenging job of designing a capacity market for Alberta’s electricity sector might be interested in this recent judgment of the European Court of Justice in which the Court concluded that the European Commission (EC) had been too hasty in approving the design of the UK’s proposed capacity market. The case arises in the particular context of the primary law of the European Union (EU), the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and specifically that treaty’s provisions on “State aid” – better known to the rest of the world as unlawful state subsidies. The UK’s proposed capacity market had to be notified to the EC for its approval because a capacity market, despite the “market” label, represents a departure from a “purer” version of an electricity market (an energy only market). A capacity market involves a degree of central planning (estimating the required capacity) and then “out of market” payments to those who post winning bids to provide that capacity. See my earlier post on Alberta’s capacity market legislation here.

Decriminalization of Cannabis and Canadian Youth

Saskatchewan Land Titles Decision Calls Out for Appellate Review

The Alberta Law Reform Institute Begins Project Selection

Implementing UNDRIP: some reflections on Bill C-262

Food for thought: Judgment of the European Court of Justice on Capacity Market Issues