The Crown Pore Space Lease and Pore Space Unit Agreement

By: Nigel Bankes

Documents commented on: The Crown Pore Space Lease and Pore Space Unit Agreement

PDF Version: The Crown Pore Space Lease and Pore Space Unit Agreement

As I discussed in my last ABlawg post the Government of Alberta (GoA) recently announced the adoption of the Small-Scale and Remote (SSR) Carbon Sequestration Tenure. As part of this announcement, the GoA also released a standard form pore space lease (PSL) and a model Pore Space Unit Agreement (PSUA). This is my attempt to unpack these two agreements and to offer what I hope will be understood as constructive comments on these documents. Continue reading →

Public Participation under the Water Act (Alberta): A Very Short Window of Opportunity

By: Shaun Fluker

Legislation commented on: Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3

PDF Version: Public Participation under the Water Act (Alberta): A Very Short Window of Opportunity

The Faculty’s Public Interest Law Clinic regularly gets inquiries from the public seeking guidance on how to participate in decision-making under the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3. As well, the Clinic maintains an active list of projects on the subject of public participation in environmental decision-making. Common matters of concern that we hear about include draining wetlands, as well as impacts to groundwater. As water scarcity in southern Alberta becomes an acute problem, I expect to see a growth in public concern with development projects that affect surface and ground water. This very short comment is simply a reminder that if someone wants to provide feedback or comments on an application made under the Water Act, for example an application made by a company that plans to drain a wetland so that the area can be developed, they normally have only 7 days from the date of the application to submit a ‘statement of concern’ to Alberta Environment and Protected Areas. Continue reading →

E. coli and the Public Health Act (Alberta)

By: Shaun Fluker and Lorian Hardcastle

Legislation commented on: Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37; Communicable Diseases Regulation, Alta Reg 238/1985; Food Regulation, Alta Reg 31/2006

PDF Version: E. coli and the Public Health Act (Alberta)

The beleaguered public health system in Alberta is back in the spotlight with the devastating E. coli outbreak in Calgary. As of September 19, there were 38 lab-confirmed cases connected to the outbreak, 8 of whom were receiving care in hospital, along with 27 cases of secondary transmission. The outbreak is believed to be linked to daycares that use a central kitchen, although a precise food source has not yet been identified. The kitchen suspected to be the source of the E. coli outbreak has previous public health violations and there are calls for a public inquiry. The particular strain of E. coli involved in this outbreak secretes a toxin that can lead to serious organ damage. Nine children connected with this outbreak have been diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome, which can lead to kidney failure. Continue reading →

Alberta Rolls Out Yet Another Form of Sequestration Agreement

By: Nigel Bankes

Document commented on: Mineral Rights Information Bulletin, 2023-01, Small-Scale and Remote (SSR) Carbon Sequestration Tenure, September 14, 2023

PDF Version: Alberta Rolls Out Yet Another Form of Sequestration Agreement

The Government of Alberta (GoA) is experimenting with several different forms of carbon sequestration tenure. But while the initial development of sequestration tenure and policy between 2010 and 2013 was open and transparent – as reflected in the Regulatory Framework Assessment – there is very little in the way of public explanation for the more recent changes, and, as noted in previous ABlawg posts (my last post contains relevant links), very little in terms of overall transparency. Continue reading →

Torts and Family Violence: Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia

By: Jennifer Koshan and Deanne Sowter

Case Commented On: Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia, 2022 ONSC 1303 (Can LII); 2023 ONCA 476 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Torts and Family Violence: Ahluwalia v Ahluwalia

Intimate partner violence (IPV) takes many forms, all of which cause harm to survivors (who are disproportionately women and children). In August, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada declared that gender-based violence is an epidemic. However, only certain forms of IPV were subject to legal sanction historically – primarily physical and sexual abuse, although sexual assault against a spouse was only criminalized in 1983 (see Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 278). More recently, beginning in the 1970s and 80s, emotional and financial abuse and coercive control have been recognized as insidious forms of IPV. Coercive control focuses on patterns rather than discrete incidents of abuse, and on the impact on the survivor’s autonomy rather than physical injuries (see Evan Stark, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)). Although coercive control is not currently criminalized in Canada (unlike some other common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales), broad definitions of IPV that include coercive control and emotional and financial abuse are now included in many Canadian laws. There are laws declaring IPV to be relevant to parenting decisions (including relocation), protection orders, early termination of leases, employment leave, and other legal remedies (for a comparison of these laws across Canada, see here). Gaps in the law’s recognition of IPV remain, however. For example, in Alberta, definitions of family violence in the Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5, and Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27, do not yet include emotional and financial abuse or coercive control (for discussion see e.g. here). Moreover, as we discuss in this post, tort law has inconsistently provided avenues of economic redress for the harms caused by IPV. Continue reading →