Total Claims that its ROFR Rights Were Violated in the Sale of Teck’s Interest in the Fort Hills Project

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: TotalEnergies EP Canada Ltd v Suncor Energy Inc, 2023 ABKB 59 (CanLII).

PDF Version: Total Claims that its ROFR Rights Were Violated in the Sale of Teck’s Interest in the Fort Hills Project

Suncor, Total, and Teck all owned interests in the Fort Hills Oilsands Project (54%, 24.4%, and 21.5%, respectively). Teck agreed to sell its interest in the project to Suncor. The sale triggered a right of first refusal (ROFR) in the relevant agreement. The sale included some of Teck’s other assets (the other assets) but the sale was also subject to a condition precedent that required Teck to vote in favour of a proposed operating budget for the Project (the budget approval covenant). Suncor’s proposed operating budget had been hotly contested among the three partners for a number of years. Total and Teck had repeatedly voted against Suncor’s budget proposals, with the result that those budgets were not approved and operations had to revert to the last approved budget of 2021. Continue reading →

R v Hills and R v Hilbach and Section 12 of the Charter: The Twelfth Dimension of Sentencing

By: Lisa Silver

Cases commented on: R v Hills, 2023 SCC 2 (CanLII); R v Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3 (CanLII)

PDF Version: R v Hills and R v Hilbach and Section 12 of the Charter: The Twelfth Dimension of Sentencing

Editors’ Note: This is the third in our series of posts to mark Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Week at the University of Calgary, which deals with the impact of mandatory minimums sentences on the Charter rights of Indigenous persons.

 

We live in four dimensions of space, famously described by the space-time continuum imagined by Albert Einstein. In legal terms, a courtroom is an example of this kind of space we perceive when practicing law. If we look outside of law and further into the field of physics, even more dimensions are possible – upwards of 26 according to the Closed Unoriented Bosonic String Theory. This article is concerned with a previously unacknowledged dimension of the law, found within the confines of the sentencing hearing. In the recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions of R v Hills, 2023 SCC 2 (CanLII) and R v Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3 (CanLII) a new dimension of the sentencing hearing is revealed through the application of s 12 of the Charter, which protects the right “not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”. Specifically, in Hills and Hilbach this section is engaged by the minimum terms of imprisonment mandated by the offence provisions, both of which involve firearms. The subsequent s 12 inquiry is, like the dimensions conjured by string theory, not necessarily perceived by everyone in every sentencing hearing but is an ever-present reminder of core sentencing principles, like proportionality and parity, which ensure the continual presence of human dignity in the sentencing process. Although this twelfth dimension has been revealed by virtue of the Hills and Hilbach decisions, the s 12 inquiry itself reveals much about the limits of sentencing and the frailties of our system of justice. Continue reading →

Racial Bullying in Schools

By: Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle

PDF Version: Racial Bullying in Schools

Editors’ Note: This is the second in our series of posts on equity, diversity and inclusion issues to mark Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Week at the University of Calgary. For more on the Faculty of Law’s commitment to taking action on EDI issues, see here.

 

Studies show a majority of students have witnessed or experienced racism at school, with implications for both students and teachers.

A majority of students in Canada have either witnessed or experienced racism at their schools, according to a 2021 survey by the Angus Reid Institute in partnership with the University of British Columbia (ARI/UBC Survey). In this context, racism likely means racial discrimination as opposed to systemic racism. Continue reading →

There’s No Place Like Home: Why the Dower Act Remains Relevant

By: Laura Buckingham

Case Commented On: James v Belanger, 2023 ABKB 34 (CanLII)

PDF Version: There’s No Place Like Home: Why the Dower Act Remains Relevant

Editors’ Note: February 6 to 10 is Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Week at the University of Calgary. We will be publishing a number of posts this week that touch on EDI issues. This first post deals with dower rights and the inequalities experienced by unmarried spouses. For more on the Faculty of Law’s commitment to taking action on EDI issues, see here.

James v Belanger, 2023 ABKB 34 is interesting because of something that isn’t mentioned in the decision. The case is not about the Dower Act, RSA 2000, c D-15. If the Dower Act applied, the whole dispute might have been avoided. A retired man would be able to stay in the home he shared with his partner for more than 15 years. Continue reading →

Judicial Review on the Vires of Subordinate Legislation: Full Vavilov, Partial Vavilov or No Vavilov?

By: Shaun Fluker

Cases Commented On: Auer v Auer, 2022 ABCA 375 (CanLII) and TransAlta Generation Partnership v Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs), 2022 ABCA 381 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Judicial Review on the Vires of Subordinate Legislation: Full Vavilov, Partial Vavilov or No Vavilov?

This comment examines two decisions issued concurrently by the Alberta Court of Appeal in late November 2022 that reject the application of a standard of review analysis when reviewing the vires (aka legality) of a ‘true’ regulation, (the need for the modifier is explained below). This is a topic that I have casually followed for some time. In 2016 I wrote Does the Standard of Review Analysis Apply to a Vires Determination of Subordinate Legislation? and in 2018 I wrote Judicial Review on the Vires of Subordinate Legislation. Together these earlier posts describe an uncertainty that has reigned for years over whether a standard of review analysis applies to the vires determination of subordinate legislation. In its overhaul on standard of review in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII) (Vavilov), the Supreme Court of Canada did not explicitly address this question (for my overview on standard of review under Vavilov see Vavilov on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law). The uncertainty has evolved into a jurisprudential conflict. In Portnov v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 171 (CanLII) (Portnov), the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that a Vavilov standard of review analysis applies to the vires determination of regulations (Portnov at paras 23 – 28; see more recently Innovative Medicines Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 210 (CanLII)). In Auer v Auer, 2022 ABCA 375 (CanLII) (Auer) and TransAlta Generation Partnership v Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs), 2022 ABCA 381 (CanLII) (TransAlta Generation) the Court of Appeal rules that Vavilov may partially apply to some regulations but not ‘true’ regulations (Justice Feehan departs from the majority in Auer on this point: Auer at para 117)). Continue reading →