Announcing a Summer Discussion Series on Recent Developments in Energy and Environmental Law

By: Martin Olszynski and Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Announcing a Summer Discussion Series on Recent Developments in Energy and Environmental Law

Event Commented On: 2017 Energy & Environmental Law Summer Discussion Series

The past year has been relatively busy from a legislative and policy reform perspective, especially with respect to Canadian energy and environmental law. At the federal level, all of the expert panels and parliamentary committees tasked by the current Liberal government with reviewing the Harper-era changes to Canada’s energy and environmental law regime have now delivered their reports: Forward, Together: Enabling Canada’s Clean, Safe and Secure Energy Future (regarding the National Energy Board); Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada (regarding federal environmental assessment processes); Review of changes made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act: enhancing the protection of fish and fish habitat and the management of Canadian fisheries; and A Study of the Navigation Protection Act. There has also been important litigation at the provincial level, especially the Alberta Court of Appeal’s recent decision in the Redwater litigation: Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124 (CanLII).

While most of these developments have been discussed in this forum (see e.g. posts by Kwasniak, Fluker and Yewchuk, Olszynski, and Mascher with respect to environmental assessment and Bankes on the NEB report and Redwater), the Faculty and the Canadian Institute of Resources Law have decided that it would also be interesting to host a series of panel discussions over the summer to further analyze the issues. Continue reading →

Let’s Shine Some Light into Creative Environmental Sentencing

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Let’s Shine Some Light into Creative Environmental Sentencing

Case Commented On: R v Canadian National Railway Company sentencing order dated June 2, 2017 (ABPC)

On June 12 the Alberta government announced that Canadian National Railway Company (CN Rail) had pled guilty to two offences under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12 (EPEA) with respect to the release of hydrocarbons that occurred in April 2015. The penalty imposed on CN Rail was a total of $125,000, consisting of $15,000 in fines and a  $110,000 payment in funds directed to the Edmonton and Area Land Trust to support conservation in the Edmonton region with a focus on aquatic and riparian habitat. This payment of funds to the Land Trust is known as a creative environmental sentence, and this post asks some critical questions about how this increasingly popular form of punishment for environmental offences is being implemented in Alberta. Continue reading →

“Majoritarian Blind Spot”? Drug Dependence and the Protection Against Employment Discrimination

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: “Majoritarian Blind Spot”? Drug Dependence and the Protection Against Employment Discrimination

Case Commented On: Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30 (CanLII)

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30 (CanLII) on June 15, 2017. As noted in earlier ABlawg posts on the case (see here and here), the case involves a long-term employee whose job was terminated when, after a minor workplace accident, he tested positive for cocaine and admitted to having consumed the drug while off work a couple of days prior. Elk Valley Coal, the employer, had a policy providing some lenience for employees who disclosed drug or alcohol addictions and sought treatment, failing which its practice was to automatically terminate employment where an employee tested positive for drugs or alcohol following a workplace accident. Stewart did not avail himself of this policy because he did not realize he had an addiction until after the accident. He alleged that his termination amounted to discrimination on the basis of disability contrary to section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, and that he had not been reasonably accommodated by Elk Valley. Stewart’s claim was dismissed by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, a decision upheld by the Court of Queen’s Bench and a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (per Chief Justice McLachlin) upheld as reasonable the Tribunal decision that there was no discrimination. Justices Moldaver and Wagner disagreed with this conclusion but concurred in the result, finding that the Tribunal was reasonable in concluding that Elk Valley had fulfilled its duty to accommodate. Justice Gascon dissented, characterizing the Tribunal’s decisions on both discrimination and the duty to accommodate as unreasonable.

I find Justice Gascon’s decision most persuasive and most in keeping with a broad, generous approach to interpreting human rights legislation. His remark (at para 59) that drug-dependent persons can “easily be caught in a majoritarian blind spot in the discrimination discourse” was evident in the decisions of the Tribunal and courts below, and in the reasons of the majority of the Supreme Court, as I will elaborate on in this post. Continue reading →

Impending National Security Legislation: A “New Road Map” to Update Canada’s National Security Framework

By: Michael Nesbitt

PDF Version: Impending National Security Legislation: A “New Road Map” to Update Canada’s National Security Framework

Legislation Commented On: Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, SC 2015, c 20

Government Report Commented On: Protecting Canadians and their Rights: A New Road Map for Canada’s National Security, SECU Committee Report, May 2017, 42nd Parliament, 1st Session 

Introduction/Overview

At some point soon, possibly as early as Tuesday, June 20th, the government will table legislation that would make significant changes to Canada’s national security framework. It will do so, at least in part, to fulfill the Liberal Government’s election promise to respond to the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, commonly known as Bill C-51.

What the government might do or how broad the legislation might be is unknown at this point, though signs point to it being a fairly hefty legislative package. It’s also unknown whether the various issues that have been floated regarding amendments to Canada’s national security framework will be legislated in one fell swoop, or whether a larger Act will be followed by further amendments as they are studied over the months and years to come.

Right now, the government would seem to have two recent sources—two Liberal government-led studies—upon which it might base all or some of its legislative proposals. (There is a third document, but it is highly focused and deals only with one—albeit highly controversial—aspect of Bill C-51, that being information sharing within the government. See the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, SC 2015, c 20, s 2. Admittedly this is a topic upon which pending government legislation will have something to say, but this post will reserve comment until that day comes.) Continue reading →

The Applicability of Charter Protection to Traffic Safety Laws

By: Nicholas Konstantinov

PDF Version: The Applicability of Charter Protection to Traffic Safety Laws

Case Commented On: Sahaluk v Alberta (Transportation Safety Board), 2017 ABCA 153 (CanLII)

In Sahaluk v Alberta (Transportation Safety Board), Mr. Justice Slatter, writing for the majority (Madam Justice Bielby concurring; Madam Justice Paperny dissenting), examined the constitutionality of Alberta’s recent amendment to the Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c. T-6 (the ‘Act’), specifically section 88.1. The amendment eclipsed previous provincial administrative licence suspension regimes for impaired driving in its manner and degree of punishment, raising inquiries into whether the province overstepped its legislative power and whether it complied with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Using evidence pertaining to the objectives and effects of the amended licence suspension scheme, Justice Slatter allowed the appeal of the chamber’s judge’s decision upholding the law, and declared that while section 88.1 was valid on federalism grounds, it was in violation of sections 7 and 11 of the Charter. Continue reading →