ABLawg

Case Commented On: JD Irving, Limited et al v Wolastoqey Nations, 2025 NBCA 129 (CanLII); Wolastoqey Nations v New Brunswick and Canada, et al., 2024 NBKB 203 (CanLII)

PDF Version: “Declarations of Aboriginal Title Are Not Discretionary”

Robert Hamilton has already posted an ABlawg article on the recent New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision in the Wolastoqey Nations case. In it, he does an excellent job of summarizing the issues on the motion to strike the industrial defendants from the proceedings and of critically analyzing the Court of Appeal’s decision. I will therefore focus my commentary on what I regard as another troubling aspect of the decision, namely that a judicial declaration does not necessarily follow from a factual finding of Aboriginal title.

This action was brought by the Wolastoqey Nations against Canada, New Brunswick, and a number of industrial, fee simple landowners who brought the motion to strike to avoid participation in the litigation. On such a motion, the facts alleged in the statement of claim are assumed to be established. The question was thus limited to whether these landowners were proper parties.

Untangling Received Law in Alberta

By Joe Sellman

On February 9, 2026

In Law Reform, Legal Research

By: Joe Sellman

Report Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Residential Tenancies: Distress for Rent Final Report 122 (pending publication)

PDF Version: Untangling Received Law in Alberta

What would you think if I told you that Alberta has inherited legislation from England that remains in effect today, and continues to impact the state of the law in this province?

As part of the Alberta Law Reform Institute’s (ALRI) Residential Tenancies Act project, we have been working on a standalone report considering whether the remedy of distress for rent should be abolished in residential tenancies, and if not abolished whether the law should be codified (see Issue 8 and Issue 9 in Alberta Law Reform Institute, Residential Tenancies Act: General Issues, Issue Paper 6 (2025) at 52-55).

Grading the 2024 AER Liability Management Performance Report

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 5, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Drew Yewchuk and Shaun Fluker

Report Commented On: 2024 AER Liability Management Performance Report

PDF Version: Grading the 2024 AER Liability Management Performance Report

In November 2025, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) published the 2024 Liability Management Performance Report (2024 Report). This is the third AER Liability Management Performance Report to the public on progress to reduce Alberta’s massive unfunded closure liability in the conventional (non-oil sands mine) oil and gas sector. We discussed the 2022 report here and the 2023 report here. In a positive change from earlier years, the AER has kept the 2022 and 2023 reports up on their website. While this allows the public to compare information in the current report with past years, it is noteworthy that the AER itself does not use the previous years to evaluate performance and the 2024 Report provides almost no discussion or analysis of the data set out in the report. This is one of the reasons why the 2024 Report receives an F grade.

What Are the Implications of the International Court’s Climate Change Advisory Opinion for Provinces?

By Nigel Bankes

On January 26, 2026

In Climate Change, Environmental, International Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Obligations of States In Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, July 23, 2025

PDF Version: What Are the Implications of the International Court’s Climate Change Advisory Opinion for Provinces?

ABlawg has already published posts on constitutional climate change litigation in Canada (the La Rose case, here) as well as two posts on the important unanimous Advisory Opinion (AO) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Climate Change, here and here. This post assesses the implications of the AO for a province within the Confederation of Canada, specifically a province like Alberta which is a significant producer of carbon fuels and a significant emitter of greenhouse gases: see ECCC, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2025).

“Money for Nothing”: Landlords Take on Residential Tenants’ Security Deposits

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On January 20, 2026

In Property, Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Legislation Commented On: Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1, Part 4

PDF Version: “Money for Nothing”: Landlords Take on Residential Tenants’ Security Deposits

Landlords must place their residential tenants’ security deposits in an interest-bearing trust account. When interest rates are low, landlords take for themselves all of the interest earned in these accounts. When interest rates are higher, landlords take at least the first three percent of the interest earned on their tenants’ money, delivering the rest to their tenants. In addition to benefiting from this “spread,” landlords’ duty to pay interest on security deposits to their tenants ends when tenants vacate the rental premises, but landlords can keep the security deposits for at least ten, if not thirty days. If landlords wrongfully withhold security deposits, they can keep both security deposits and the interest earned for weeks, months or even years of negotiation, law suits, judgment filings and service, and collections. This might seem like small change if your idea of a landlord is a couple renting out a basement suite in their home. However, landlords in Alberta these days tend to be Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS) and some of these REITS have thousands of residential tenants. If a REIT has 20,000 rental units in Alberta with an average of one $2,000 security deposit per unit, a REIT would have $40,000,000 of their tenant’s money earning the REIT at least 3% interest annually. That would be $1,200,000 per year. Money for nothing and all legal. The three percent spread and the interest-free holding after tenants vacate are enabled by Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA) and its regulations. The refusal of the Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) to require landlords to pay interest on wrongfully withheld security deposits, or to otherwise compensate tenants, is not required, but it seems to be their policy.