ABlawg

John v Edmonton Police Service: Guilty of Being a Black Man

Posted on October 19, 2023 by Amy Matychuk

By: Amy Matychuk

Case commented on: John v Edmonton Police Service, 2023 AHRC 87 (CanLII)

PDF Version: John v Edmonton Police Service: Guilty of Being a Black Man

This is a comment on a decision on a complaint made under s 4 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, that the Edmonton Police Service discriminated against the complainants on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, or place of origin.

The Black complainants, Yousef John and Caesar Judianga, were roommates who chased a White woman they witnessed smash a car window. Their other roommate, also a Black man, restrained the woman while one of the complainants called the police. When the police officer arrived at the chaotic scene, he believed the complainants were possibly engaged in criminal behavior and used force to gain control of the situation. The police officer directed most of the force he used against the Black complainants rather than the White woman. Tribunal Member Erika Ringseis of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) found that the complaint was made out against the Edmonton Police Service. Continue reading →

Posted in Human Rights, Police | Comments Off

British Columbia Free Entry Mining System Triggers Duty to Consult and Must Change: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

Posted on October 18, 2023 by David V Wright

By: David V. Wright

Case Commented On: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2023 BCSC 1680 (CanLII)

PDF Version: British Columbia Free Entry Mining System Triggers Duty to Consult and Must Change: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

The Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC) recently ruled that the existing mineral tenure system in the province triggers provincial Crown obligations to consult First Nations. While the duty to consult is now a relatively mature area of law in Canada that is “replete with indicia for what constitutes meaningful consultation” (Coldwater First Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 34 (CanLII) at para 41), some areas of uncertainty remain. This case dealt with one such long-standing question: does British Columbia’s “free entry” mineral tenure regime trigger the Crown’s duty to consult? This post discusses the findings of the court and briefly comments on implications of the decision for BC and the rest of Canada. My colleague Nigel Bankes recently wrote a post on the aspect of this decision pertaining to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (here), and my other colleague, Dr. Elizabeth Steyn, will soon publish a post on the sacred sites dimension of the decision. Continue reading →

Posted in Aboriginal, Indigenous, Provincial Court | Comments Off

The Next Chapter in the Role of Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer of Health

Posted on October 17, 2023 by Lorian Hardcastle

By: Lorian Hardcastle

Legislation and Cases Commented on: Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37; CM v Alberta, 2022 ABKB 716 (CanLII); Ingram v Alberta (Chief Medical Officer of Health), 2023 ABKB 453 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Next Chapter in the Role of Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer of Health

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, provincial public health officials were thrust into the spotlight as trusted figures who would guide the public through the unknowns of a novel virus. However, as the pandemic raged on and tensions emerged regarding the appropriate restrictiveness of public health measures, cracks formed in the relationships between the public, politicians, and public health officials. At times, Alberta’s then Premier Jason Kenney and then Minister of Health Tyler Shandro seemed content to take credit for effectively balancing “lives and livelihoods”. However, when things were not going well, they would credit then Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Deena Hinshaw. For example, when the government’s disastrous “Open for Summer” plan contributed to severe hospital capacity problems and prompted discussions of sending people out of province for care and rationing essential health services, Shandro was quick to note that the plan “came from Dr. Hinshaw” and that he was “deferential to [her] independence.” Continue reading →

Posted in COVID-19, Statutory Interpretation | Comments Off

Wait, What!? What the Supreme Court Actually Said in the IAA Reference

Posted on October 16, 2023 by Martin Olszynski

By: Martin Olszynski, Nigel Bankes, and David Wright

Case Commented On: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Wait, What!? What the Supreme Court Actually Said in the IAA Reference

This past Friday, October 13, the Supreme Court of Canada released its opinion in Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Reference). Writing for a 5:2 majority (Justices Mahmud Jamal and Andromache Karakatsanis dissenting), Chief Justice Richard Wagner held that what is known as the “designated project” (or “major project” in colloquial terms) review scheme of the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (“IAA”) is unconstitutional. This post sets out what is, and is not, constitutional about the IAA regime. We begin by first clarifying the Act’s current legal status. We then set out the principles – post-IAA Reference – of federal and provincial jurisdiction over the environment generally, and then with respect to impact assessment specifically. This is followed by a discussion of the IAA’s specific constitutional defects as found by the majority, the implications of those defects, and their potential remedies. We conclude with some observations regarding the IAA Reference’s relevance to future constitutional battles over federal clean electricity regulations and an oil and gas greenhouse gas emissions cap. Continue reading →

Posted in Constitutional, Environmental, Supreme Court of Canada | 1 Comment

The AER Does Not Have the Jurisdiction to Consider New Coal Applications for the Grassy Mountain Coal Deposit

Posted on October 13, 2023 by Nigel Bankes

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter commented on: Applications by Northback Holdings Corporation for a Coal Exploration Program on the Grassy Mountain Coal Deposit, including Application Number 1948547, Deep Drilling Permit

PDF Version: The AER Does Not Have the Jurisdiction to Consider New Coal Applications for the Grassy Mountain Coal Deposit

On September 5, 2023, Northback Holdings Corporation filed an application with the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for a Deep Drilling Permit in support of a coal exploration program on the Grassy Mountain coal deposit. This deposit is located north of Blairmore, Alberta on a combination of Crown coal lands and Northback’s privately owned land. Northback proposes to commence its exploration program as soon as possible. Northback’s applications have triggered an outpouring of opposition from the coalition of interests that fought the original Grassy Mountain coal project: see here (CPAWS) and here (Corb Lund). There has also been considerable media coverage of this latest development: see here (Bob Weber) and here (Andrew Nikiforuk). My purpose in writing this post is to make the case that (1) Northback was not entitled to make these applications to the AER, and (2) the AER has no business considering the merits of these applications because Northback’s new applications are subject to the general “no new coal rule” contained in a 2022 Ministerial Order directed at the AER (details below). Others have also made this case, including Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (Southern Alberta Chapter) (CPAWS-SAB) and the Timberwolf Wilderness Society, but it still seems useful to summarize the arguments. Continue reading →