The Word “Exclusive” Does Not Confer a Constitutional Monopoly, Nor a Right to Develop Provincial Resource Projects

By: Nigel Bankes and Andrew Leach

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

PDF Version: The Word “Exclusive” Does Not Confer a Constitutional Monopoly, Nor a Right to Develop Provincial Resource Projects

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Reference) concludes that the federal government has arrogated to itself decision-making powers that properly belong to provincial governments; powers, that is, with respect to resource projects and other works and undertakings located entirely within a province (for short, “provincial resource projects”). (For an overview of the IAA Reference see Olszynski et al, “Wait, What!? What the Supreme Court Actually Said in the IAA Reference”.) Given that conclusion, it is not surprising that Premier Danielle Smith, as well as former premier Jason Kenney, who initiated the Reference, have celebrated the decision. But in doing so they have both significantly overstated the majority’s conclusions by suggesting that the majority endorsed a strong theory of exclusive provincial jurisdiction over provincial resource projects. Premier Smith, echoing language in the Alberta Court of Appeal majority opinion in the IAA Reference (which we commented on here), would extend this interpretation further to a right of development and to a form of interjurisdictional immunity for projects falling outside the exceptions in section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867. We provide concrete examples of Premier Smith’s use of the word “exclusive” (or its synonyms) and references to a “right to develop” from the Premier’s press conference on the IAA Reference decision and an interview prior to the decision in Appendix A to this post, and a link to the views of the Hon. Jason Kenney in Appendix B. Continue reading →

Democratic Accountability and the Banff Centre

By: Shaun Fluker

Order commented on: Order in Council 184/2023 (Post-Secondary Learning Act)

PDF Version: Democratic Accountability and the Banff Centre

The Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity, located in the Town of Banff, is an internationally known and respected institution for the study of arts and culture. The Centre describes itself as “. . . a leader in the development and promotion of creative work in the arts, sciences, business, and the environment.” Many Canadians eventually cross paths with the Centre for one reason or another, even if they do not study the arts, because the Centre hosts a wide range of live performances, conferences, and similar public events annually. The Centre also has a very well-established program in Indigenous Leadership. For me, the Centre is most familiar as the home of the Banff Mountain Book and Film Festival, which is held at this time every year (late October to early November). This past week however, the Centre was in the news for a very different reason: on October 26 the Alberta government removed the entire board of governors and replaced them with an individual administrator. This change was implemented by the Lieutenant Governor in Council with the issuance of OC 184/2023. This short comment describes the legislative framework for this Order, and I argue that this sort of power over an important institution in our democracy needs some accountability and transparency measures to ensure it is truly exercised in the public interest. Continue reading →

The IAA Reference: A Missed Opportunity for Guidance on Important Issues Pertaining to Indigenous Peoples

By: Robert Hamilton

Case Commented on: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

 PDF Version: The IAA Reference: A Missed Opportunity for Guidance on Important Issues Pertaining to Indigenous Peoples

In the Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Ref), the Supreme Court of Canada considered the constitutionality of the federal environmental impact assessment regime. For analysis of what precise aspects of the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (IAA) the majority found unconstitutional (and which it held were unproblematic), see the post by my colleagues Martin Olszynski, Nigel Bankes, and David V. Wright here. Continue reading →

John v Edmonton Police Service: Guilty of Being a Black Man

By: Amy Matychuk

Case commented on: John v Edmonton Police Service, 2023 AHRC 87 (CanLII)

 PDF Version: John v Edmonton Police Service: Guilty of Being a Black Man

This is a comment on a decision on a complaint made under s 4 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, that the Edmonton Police Service discriminated against the complainants on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, or place of origin.

The Black complainants, Yousef John and Caesar Judianga, were roommates who chased a White woman they witnessed smash a car window. Their other roommate, also a Black man, restrained the woman while one of the complainants called the police. When the police officer arrived at the chaotic scene, he believed the complainants were possibly engaged in criminal behavior and used force to gain control of the situation. The police officer directed most of the force he used against the Black complainants rather than the White woman. Tribunal Member Erika Ringseis of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) found that the complaint was made out against the Edmonton Police Service. Continue reading →

British Columbia Free Entry Mining System Triggers Duty to Consult and Must Change: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

By: David V. Wright

Case Commented On: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2023 BCSC 1680 (CanLII)

PDF Version: British Columbia Free Entry Mining System Triggers Duty to Consult and Must Change: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

The Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC) recently ruled that the existing mineral tenure system in the province triggers provincial Crown obligations to consult First Nations. While the duty to consult is now a relatively mature area of law in Canada that is “replete with indicia for what constitutes meaningful consultation” (Coldwater First Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 34 (CanLII) at para 41), some areas of uncertainty remain. This case dealt with one such long-standing question: does British Columbia’s “free entry” mineral tenure regime trigger the Crown’s duty to consult? This post discusses the findings of the court and briefly comments on implications of the decision for BC and the rest of Canada. My colleague Nigel Bankes recently wrote a post on the aspect of this decision pertaining to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (here), and my other colleague, Dr. Elizabeth Steyn, will soon publish a post on the sacred sites dimension of the decision. Continue reading →