First Arbitration Award under the Nunavut Agreement

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter commented on: Arbitration Award in The Inuit of Nunavut as represented by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated v His Majesty the King in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and The Commissioner of Nunavut as represented by the Government of Nunavut, and the Government of Nunavut as represented by the Premier of Nunavut, and the Government of Nunavut, Initial Decision, March 25, 2023.

PDF Version: First Arbitration Award under the Nunavut Agreement

This is the first Arbitration Award under the revised dispute resolution provisions of the Nunavut Agreement (1993). The Nunavut Agreement is the constitutionally protected land claims agreement between the Inuit of Nunavut and the Governments of Canada (GoC) and Nunavut (GN). In this Award, the Honourable Constance Hunt, acting as the sole arbitrator, has issued a series of declarations concluding that Inuit Employment Plans (IEPs) prepared by each of the GN and GoC fell short of the obligations of government under the terms of Article 23 of the Nunavut Agreement (NA). Article 23 of the NA is entitled “Inuit Employment within Government”. Continue reading →

Private Health Care and the Law Part 3: Not the Anticipated Conclusion but Still Not a Loss for Public Health Care

By: Kate Perala and Lorian Hardcastle

Decision commented on: Cambie Surgeries Corporation, et al v Attorney General of British Columbia, et al, 2023 CanLII 26745

PDF Version: Private Health Care and the Law Part 3: Not the Anticipated Conclusion but Still Not a Loss for Public Health Care

On April 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) dismissed an application for leave to appeal the decision of the BC Court of Appeal in Cambie Surgeries Corporation, et al v Attorney General of British Columbia, et al, 2023 CanLII 26745. Previous blog posts by one of the authors of this post describe the trial decision in detail (see here and here). Many expected that the SCC would hear this case, given the importance of the issues at stake, the strongly-worded concerns with the public health care system expressed by Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon at the BC Court of Appeal (Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCCA 245 (CanLII)), and the fact that the SCC’s 2005 decision in Chaoulli v Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 35 (CanLII), left the constitutionality of limits on private finance in health care unresolved. To many, this decision represents a missed opportunity for the SCC to provide clarity on this defining yet widely-debated feature of our health care system. Continue reading →

Stores Block Meets Vavilov: The Status of Pre-Vavilov ABCA Decisions

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision commented on: ATCO Electric Ltd v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2023 ABCA 129 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Stores Block Meets Vavilov: The Status of Pre-Vavilov ABCA Decisions

This case is an appeal of the ATCO Fort McMurray fire decision of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). In this case, a panel of the Court of Appeal made an important statement as to the status of previous court decisions on AUC-related matters that were rendered prior to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. Continue reading →

Premier Danielle Smith and the (Non) Observance of Constitutional Conventions

By: Nigel Bankes and Jennifer Koshan

Matter Commented On: Premier Smith’s interactions with the Department of Justice in the matter of Artur Pawlowski

PDF Version: Premier Danielle Smith and the (Non) Observance of Constitutional Conventions

For the past several weeks, news outlets have been reporting on Premier Danielle Smith’s involvement in prosecutions for COVID-19 and Coutts border blockade related offences. Most recently, a video was leaked of Premier Smith’s conversation with Artur Pawlowski, who is facing criminal charges for the Coutts blockade that Smith said she would discuss with Justice officials. One issue that has not squarely been addressed is the significance of whether Premier Smith actually spoke to prosecutors in Pawlowski’s case, or whether she just spoke to officials within the Department of Justice, including the Deputy Attorney General, about the case.  The Premier’s back and forth on who she contacted suggests she believes this distinction matters, such that if she “only” did the latter she did not breach any constitutional convention relating to prosecutorial independence. In our view this is incorrect. Any contact by the Premier with the Department of Justice in relation to any particular case or class of cases is inconsistent with the constitutional conventions associated with the prosecution of criminal charges. These constitutional conventions are essential elements of the rule of law, the separation of powers, and ideas of equality before the law. Continue reading →

Administrative Penalties at the Alberta Energy Regulator: A Gentle Slap on the Wrist for Ovintiv

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decision Commented On: AER Administrative Penalty 202304-03, Ovintiv Canada ULC

PDF Version: Administrative Penalties at the Alberta Energy Regulator: A Gentle Slap on the Wrist for Ovintiv

I recently turned my mind to the subject of how the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) makes decisions on financial penalties to companies that contravene the conditions of their project approvals. This post is the first in what may become a series of blogs on the question. Continue reading →