ABLawg

Energy Regulatory Forum: A Discussion on Bill C-69 Part 1: Canada Energy Regulator: A rose by any other name – what does it do; how does it work?

On July 5, 2018

Presenters: Dennis Langen, Partner, Stikeman Elliott LLP; Sheila Leggett, President, Tower Peak Consultants Ltd.

Summarized By: David Hillier, BSc EnvS, University of Calgary JD Candidate 2020

PDF Version: Energy Regulatory Forum: A Discussion on Bill C-69 Part 1: Canada Energy Regulator: A rose by any other name – what does it do; how does it work?

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth in a series of blog posts that provides summaries of presentations from the ninth annual Energy Regulatory Forum, held in Calgary on May 28, 2018, as summarized by student attendees.

The first presentation at the 2018 Energy Regulatory Forum compared and contrasted Bill C-69 and the incoming Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) regime with the current National Energy Board (NEB) regulatory regime it is intended to replace (for an earlier ABlawg on this topic, see here). What important differences should those in the energy industry be aware of? What are the potential issues with the new regime? Dennis Langen and Shelia Leggett provided a brief tour through the proposed legislation, highlighted some of its key features, and discussed the significance of these regulatory changes.

Regulating Lawyer-Client Sex

By Alice Woolley

On July 4, 2018

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Alice Woolley

PDF Version: Regulating Lawyer-Client Sex

In Canada we allow lawyers to have sex with their clients. Or, to be precise: we do not prohibit lawyers from having sex with their clients.

Canadian law societies do regulate lawyer-client sex in a limited way. Almost all law societies prohibit sexual harassment. And most law societies also identify lawyer-client sex as potentially creating conflicts of interest. They identify sexual relationships with clients as the sort of thing that may “conflict with the lawyer’s duty to provide objective, disinterested professional advice to the client” and which may “permit exploitation of the client” (FLS Model Code Rule 3.4-1, Commentary 11(d), adopted in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, PEI and the territories). Ontario has not adopted the FLS Commentary. The Commentary in Ontario says instead “the judgment of a lawyer who has a close personal relationship, sexual or otherwise, with a client who is in a family law dispute is likely to be compromised” (Rule 3.4-1, Commentary 4). Alberta has also not adopted the FLS Commentary. Alberta’s Code does not reference sexual relationships anywhere in its conflicts rules. Indeed, apart from its harassment rules, Alberta’s Code does not mention sex at all.

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do, But Dividing Property Shouldn’t Be

By Laura Buckingham

On July 3, 2018

In Family

By: Laura Buckingham

PDF Version: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do, But Dividing Property Shouldn’t Be

Case Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Property Division: Common-law Couples and Adult Interdependent Partners, Report 112

Last fall, I wrote a post about the Alberta Law Reform Institute’s project on property division for common-law couples. At that time, we were seeking feedback on preliminary recommendations for reform. Since then, we have heard from hundreds of Albertans. We considered all the feedback we received to develop our final recommendations. Last week, ALRI published its final recommendations in Property Division: Common-law Couples and Adult Interdependent Partners, Report 112.

Barring Claims Against Discriminatory Legislation: Canada v Canada

By Elysa Darling

On June 29, 2018

In Aboriginal, Human Rights

By: Elysa Darling and Drew Lafond

PDF Version: Barring Claims Against Discriminatory Legislation: Canada v Canada

Case Commented On: Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31 (Can LII)

Two weeks ago, in Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission v Canada (Attorney General) (CHRC v AG), the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) that direct challenges to legislation cannot be pursued under section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC 1985, c H-6 (the CHRA). The claimants in this case argued that they were discriminated against under section 6 of the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I-5 and filed a complaint under section 5 of the CHRA asking the CHRT to render inoperative the offending provisions in the Indian Act. The decision of the CHRT, with which the Court agreed, was that a complaint under the CHRA cannot be used to directly challenge legislation on the basis that it is discriminatory.

Alberta Court follows Third Eye Capital v Dianor in a Royalty Characterization Case

By Nigel Bankes

On June 28, 2018

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Alberta Court follows Third Eye Capital v Dianor in a Royalty Characterization Case

Case Commented On: Manitok Energy Inc (Re), 2018 ABQB 488 (CanLII)

In a welcome development Justice Karen Horner has followed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Third Eye Capital Corporation v Resources Dianor Inc., 2018 ONCA 253 (CanLII) (the subject of a post here) and concluded that the royalty agreements at issue in this case were intended to create an interest in land and did in law create such an interest notwithstanding that the royalty was described as in interest in oil volumes once produced rather than as in interest in the minerals themselves.