By: Alice Woolley
PDF Version: Law Schools’ Dirty Little Secret
Left-leaning social justice warriors have captured Canadian law schools. So goes recent commentary in the National Post (see, e.g. recent columns by Barbara Kay, Bruce Pardy and Christie Blatchford). Law profs “espouse and impose a particular set of values or opinions and a way of thinking” (Blatchford, emphasis added).
By: Dave Poulton
PDF Version: Alberta Energy Regulator Breaks New Ground on Offsetting of Caribou Habitat
Decision Commented On: TransCanada Pipelines Limited, Applications for the White Spruce Pipeline Project, Fort MacKay Area, February 22, 2018, 2018 ABAER 001
On February 22 the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) released a decision that could advance Alberta’s seemingly endless discussions on caribou conservation and on conservation offsets. By requiring TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TCPL) to offset the disturbance of habitat in caribou range caused by the construction of 2 new oil pipelines, the AER may have signalled its willingness to show leadership on these files.
By: Nigel Bankes
PDF Version: Overturning Stores Block and Implementing the Capacity Market
Bill Commented On: An Act to Secure Alberta’s Electricity Future, Bill 13 [Alberta], first reading, April 19, 2018
This Bill has four main objectives. First (clauses 1-2), Bill 13 overturns the majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in a case known as Stores Block: ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. v Alberta (Energy & Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4 (CanLII). Second (clauses 3-35), the Bill will amend a series of energy statutes to provide the necessary legislative framework to implement the government’s plan to establish an electricity capacity market to supplement the existing energy market. Third (clause 36), the Bill will afford the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) enhanced authority to make orders (including administrative penalties) with respect to electric utilities, regulated rate providers and retailers (and their gas equivalents) where the AUC concludes that there has been a failure to comply with the rules respecting service quality and standards. Fourth, the Bill (clause 57) will afford the Lieutenant Governor in Council the authority under s 142 of the Electric Utilities Act, SA 2003, c E-5.1 to allow the AUC and the Alberta Electric System Authority (AESO) to make rules with respect to the expedited construction of transmission. Such rules are currently found in some form in the Transmission Deficiency Regulation, Alta Reg 176/2014.
By: Nigel Bankes
PDF Version: Applications for Party Status in a Permission to Appeal Application
Bill Commented On: Balancing Pool v ENMAX Energy Corporation, 2018 ABCA 143 (CanLII)
This decision deals with applications by two parties (the Balancing Pool and TransAlta) to be accorded party status (or, failing that, intervenor status) in permission to appeal applications launched by TransCanada Energy, ENMAX and Capital Power relating to one aspect of the long-running line loss proceedings before the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). Justice Paperny’s decision on these preliminary matters merits reporting on ABlawg for two reasons. First, it provides an example of a Court taking the unusual step of granting party status in relation to that most preliminary of applications, a permission to appeal application (rather than at the subsequent stage where leave has been granted). Second, it provides an opportunity to update the status of the line loss file (AUC Proceeding 790).
By: Ben Allison, Lindsay Kvellestad, and Wajeeha Sattar
PDF Version: Proposed Security of Canada Information Sharing Act Amendments
Policy Commented On: Bill C-59, An Act Respecting National Security Matters
Executive Summary
On August 1st, 2015, the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, SC 2015, c 20 (SCISA) came into force by Bill C-51, 2nd Sess, 41st Parl, 2015 (assented to 18 June 2015). SCISA gave Government of Canada Institutions the power to share information in their possession with listed receiving institutions. Bill C-59, An Act Respecting National Security, 1st Sess, 42nd Parl, 2017 (first reading 20 June 2017) is currently in Committee (SECU). Among a host of other national security changes, this Bill proposes to make amendments to SCISA, which will become the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act (SCIDA), Bill C-59, s 114. Experts in the field of national security law in Canada have pointed to weaknesses that are not being addressed in the SCISA (see Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, A report card on the national security bill). The majority of the criticisms that are associated with Bill C-59 and SCISA/SCIDA in particular are the threshold for sharing information, the overbreadth of the exception, circularity, and a lack of review. This post does not intend to canvass the issues afresh. Rather, our focus is on novel problems with the SCISA and the proposed amendments in Bill C-59 that have largely gone unaddressed. Beyond the existing critiques, the proposed amendments in Bill C-59 still do not address significant problems. We discuss some of these problems in three parts. Part I argues that treating all types of information as the same, as the SCISA does, is problematic. Part II addresses concerns related to disclosing institutions and how they function with regard to information sharing. Similar areas of concern are mentioned in Part III relating to recipient institutions. Each part of this post includes not only critiques but also proposed solutions to the various problems surveyed.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén
