Page 2

Legislation commented on: Order in Council 008/2025 (January 29, 2025) amending the Critical Infrastructure Defence Regulation, Alta Reg 169/2021

PDF Version: Anticipatory Obedience and Essential Infrastructure at the Alberta-US Border

The authoritarian and isolationist Trump administration has profoundly altered global relations. Democratic institutions are under attack in the United States, and it seems that the grand post-WWII global project called liberal democracy finally ran out of steam on November 5, 2024. If a new world order is emerging, Canada is on the front line. This is an uncomfortable position for us, not only because our socio-economic systems are so deeply integrated with the United States, but also because the world is watching how America’s closest ally responds to the chaos. The stakes are exceedingly high. Here in Alberta, the UCP cabinet initially responded to the Trump administration with what Timothy Synder calls ‘anticipatory obedience’ in his must-read book On Tyranny. Show a bully what they can extract from you, and they will take it. Plenty has been written about the Premier’s visit to Mar-a-Lago and Alberta’s initial reluctance to align with ‘Team Canada’, my focus here is on something that has not garnered as much attention: the Lieutenant Governor in Council designating all land within two kilometres of the US border as ‘essential infrastructure’. It is truly shocking how quickly the UCP cabinet gave away Alberta’s portion of the world’s longest undefended border, and created a quasi-military area now referred to as the red zone.

I Do Solemnly [thumbs-up]: The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Endorses the Use of Emojis as Contractual Signatures (and the Decision is Kinda [meh])

By Michael Ilg

On March 3, 2025

In Contracts

By: Michael Ilg

Case Commented On: Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. v South West Terminal Ltd., 2024 SKCA 115 (CanLII)

PDF Version: I Do Solemnly : The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Endorses the Use of Emojis as Contractual Signatures (and the Decision is Kinda )

The most famous emoji in the history of Western Canadian grain contracts has been in the news again, though with much less fanfare than the first time. The trial court decision starring , South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land, 2023 SKKB 116 (CanLII) (Achter), garnered international media attention (see here, here, and here) with the novel story of the farmer found liable for a contract entered into by emoji. The recent appellate court decision in Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. v South West Terminal Ltd., 2024 SKCA 115 (CanLII) (Achter II), in comparison, received only a smattering of media coverage (see here and here). Perhaps appellate court endorsements of trial decisions are less newsworthy in general; or perhaps ’s fading popularity can be attributed to Gen Z, who are said to find passive aggressive, hurtful, or even hostile. Though ‘s fifteen minutes of fame may be drawing to a close, its legal legacy may persist for years to come, and not necessarily for the good.

The Public and The Coal Corporations Want to Know: What Was Government Thinking While Messing With Coal Policy?

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 25, 2025

In Energy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented On: Black Eagle Mining Corporation v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 22 (CanLII) and Cabin Ridge Project Limited v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 53 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Public and The Coal Corporations Want to Know: What Was Government Thinking While Messing With Coal Policy?

Black Eagle Mining Corporation v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 22 (CanLII) (Black Eagle CA) and Cabin Ridge Project Limited v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 53 (CanLII) (Cabin Ridge CA) are decisions of the Alberta Court of Appeal relating to the lawsuits by coal mining corporations claiming compensation on the basis of how they were impacted by the Alberta government’s policy decisions about coal mining in the eastern slopes.

Thin Gruel: The Crisis Management Team Review

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On February 18, 2025

In Protest

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Jennifer Koshan

Document commented on: Crisis Management Team Review, University of Calgary – Response to Protest Encampment: Final Report (November 4, 2024)

PDF Version: Thin Gruel: The Crisis Management Team Review

On November 4, 2024, consulting firm MNP released their Crisis Management Team (CMT) Review (CMT Review) of the University of Calgary’s response to the May 9, 2024 pro-Palestine encampment on campus. On December 2^nd, the University’s Executive Leadership Team (ELT) added a few minor corrections to the review’s timeline and accepted all four recommendations in their Response to the CMT Review (ELT Response). On December 13^th, Mark Herman, the Chair of the University’s Board of Governors (BOG), indicated the BOG was satisfied “there are no more material facts that we need to gather, and … management exercised sound judgment in a difficult, no-win situation (Mark Herman, “Review of university response to protest encampment concludes”, UCalgary News (13 December 2024)). Whether that is the end of the matter remains to be seen as both the University’s Students’ Union and its General Faculties Council have demanded an independent review of the University’s response to the encampment. And whether the CMT Review’s thin gruel will satisfy the appetite for a substantive review seems doubtful for several reasons.

Who Owns Brine-Hosted Minerals in Alberta?

By Nigel Bankes

On February 14, 2025

In Energy, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: Application by Enhance Energy for a Scheme Approval for its Origins Carbon Capture and Storage Project, December 2024, AER Application No. 1956215

PDF Version: Who Owns Brine-Hosted Minerals in Alberta?

In December 2024 Enhance Energy Inc filed an application with the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for a scheme approval (see Directive 065 and Oil and Gas Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c O-6 (OGCA) for its Origins Carbon Capture and Storage Project. The open file is currently available through the AER’s Integrated Application Registry (IAR) using application # 1956215. This link is currently functional. A large number of Statements of Concern (SOC) have been filed with the AER in response to this application. Many of these SOC filers are owners of mineral titles of one form or another who claim that the injection of carbon dioxide into the Leduc formation will be prejudicial to their mineral interests because of the potential to impair recovery of brine-hosted minerals, specifically lithium, in the reservoir. The underlying premise for SOCs that are framed in this way (i.e. specific to brine-hosted minerals rather than, for example, alleging prejudice to the recovery of hydrocarbons) must be that the SOC filer’s mineral title includes brine-hosted minerals. In this post I question that premise or assumption. I begin with a brief discussion of the nature of brine-hosted minerals and then discuss the relevant case law and statute law. My working conclusion is that since brine-hosted minerals are dissolved in water, and since the Crown in right of Alberta or the government of Alberta owns all the water in the province (at least outside federal lands), then brine-hosted minerals are part of that water title and not part of a mines and minerals title. It would follow from this that SOCs that are based solely on an interference with a brine-hosted mineral title have no merit.