Page 17

Locating the Constitutional Guardrails on Federal Environmental Decision Making after Reference re: Impact Assessment Act

On January 30, 2024

In Constitutional, Energy, Environmental, Oil & Gas

By: Nathan Murray and Martin Olszynski

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

PDF Version: Locating the Constitutional Guardrails on Federal Environmental Decision Making after Reference re: Impact Assessment Act

This post is the seventh ABlawg commentary on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Reference re: Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Reference) decision from October 2023. In the most recent of those posts, one of us briefly noted the majority’s preoccupation with the concept of “adverseness” when delineating the scope of federal environmental jurisdiction under the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (IAA). The majority’s preoccupation with that concept actually pervades the IAA Reference decision. Here, we focus squarely on the majority’s treatment of the concept of “adverseness” and its role in the public interest decision-making stage of federal impact assessment.

The Department of Energy and Minerals Finally Releases the Text of a Ministerial Order Delegating Technical CCS-Related Decision-Making Authority to the Alberta Energy Regulator

By Nigel Bankes

On January 29, 2024

In Carbon Capture and Storage, Privacy

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: Minister of Energy, Ministerial Order 060/2023, Delegating certain powers of the Minister under the Mines and Minerals Act and the Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation, to persons holding particular positions within the Alberta Energy Regulator, April 25, 2023

PDF Version: The Department of Energy and Minerals Finally Releases the Text of a Ministerial Order Delegating Technical CCS-Related Decision-Making Authority to the Alberta Energy Regulator

On April 25, 2023 Peter Guthrie, then Minister of Energy for the Province of Alberta, signed Ministerial Order 060/2023 delegating certain of the Minister’s powers with respect to carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects to staff within the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). In my view this, in principle, is a sound decision and reflects the recommendations made by the Steering Committee of Alberta’s Regulatory Framework Assessment more than a decade ago. In the interests of transparency, I disclose that I was a member of that Committee. The Committee took the view that while the Department of Energy (now the Department of Energy and Minerals) should have responsibility for decisions related to carbon sequestration tenure and broad questions of policy, responsibility for the more technical decisions related to a CCS project, such as the conditions for issuing a closure certificate, should be made by the AER. The distinction between these different types of decisions had been blurred with the adoption of the CCS amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act, RSA 2000, c M-15 (MMA) in 2010.

Information Shall be Released: The Long Wait for Access to Government Information in Alberta

By Drew Yewchuk

On January 17, 2024

In Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decision Commented on: University of Alberta (Re), 2023 CanLII 122872 (AB OIPC)

PDF Version: Information Shall be Released: The Long Wait for Access to Government Information in Alberta

This post is another installment in the Public Interest Law Clinic’s work on improving access to government information in Alberta. See previous posts here, here, here, and here.

Re University of Alberta, OIPC Order F2023-46 is a decision of an adjudicator at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC), the administrative review body for Alberta’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP). The decision draws out an important principle of access to government records: that no refusal of access ought to be permanent. Eventually, all government records should become public. This post provides the basics of when exceptions to disclosure expire and when a request can be usefully re-filed to obtain previously-redacted information.

Triviality and Significance of Federal Environmental Effects after Reference re: Impact Assessment Act

By Martin Olszynski

On January 15, 2024

In Energy, Environmental, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Martin Olszynski

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

PDF Version: Triviality and Significance of Federal Environmental Effects after Reference re: Impact Assessment Act

This is the sixth ABlawg post regarding the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent opinion in Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Reference) (see the first five posts here). In this post, I address the thorny issue of thresholds, i.e., the level or point at which an effect becomes material or relevant under the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (IAA). Since the opinion’s release last fall, I have read and heard concerns that the majority has imposed some kind of minimum threshold regarding the magnitude of effects required to trigger federal jurisdiction, or that the federal government could only refuse to deem such effects to be in the public interest if they are significant (see here for a thoughtful commentary on the practical problems with such an approach). As noted by Justices Andromache Karakatsanis and Mahmud Jamal in their dissent, however, it has actually long been an interpretive rule – since the Supreme Court of Canada’s environmental law decision in Ontario v Canadian Pacific Ltd, 1995 CanLII 112 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 1031 (Canadian Pacific) – that broadly worded environmental legislation is to be interpreted in a manner that does not capture trivial, or de minimis, impacts (IAA Reference at para 278). Importantly, however, and as I discussed almost a decade ago in “Ancient Maxim, Modern Problems: De Minimis, Cumulative Environmental Effects and Risk-Based Regulation” (2015) 40-2 Queen’s Law Journal 705, 2015 CanLIIDocs 5272, (“Ancient Maxim, Modern Problems”), non-triviality is a very low bar; between trivial and significant lies a wide spectrum of impacts, which at the very least includes low and moderate impacts. Trivial or de minimis impacts are essentially only those impacts that a regulatory regime could systematically ignore while still obtaining its objectives – they are treated the same as no impacts whatsoever.

#AI Facial Recognition Technology in the Retail Industry

By Gideon Christian

On January 5, 2024

In Artificial Intelligence, Privacy

By: Gideon Christian

Issue Commented On: OIPC Investigation Report 23-02: Canadian Tire Associate Dealers’ use of facial recognition technology, 2023 BCIPC 17

PDF Version: #AI Facial Recognition Technology in the Retail Industry

One summer day in 2023, I entered a Walmart store in Calgary, Alberta, and purchased three standing fans. Upon assembling the fans at home, I discovered that one was malfunctioning. I immediately decided to return it to the store. Armed with my purchase receipt, I walked to the return desk. After a brief wait in line, I presented the defective fan and the receipt to the Walmart staff. To my astonishment, he informed me that the receipt was not necessary and casually remarked, “You bought three of these today, right?” Concealing my surprise, I affirmed. He swiftly processed my refund.