ABLawg - - Page 290

Decision commented on: Shell Canada Energy, Jackpine Mine Expansion Project, Application to Amend Approval 9756, 2013 ABAER 011/Decision 2013-011 (CEAA, 2012).

On July 9, 2013, the Joint Review Panel (JRP) for Shell’s Jackpine Mine Expansion Project released its long-awaited report (the Jackpine Report). Shell had applied to expand its existing Jackpine Mine, located roughly 70 km north of Fort McMurray, to increase bitumen production by 15,900 m³/day and bring total production to 47,700 m³/day. As further discussed below, the JRP concluded that the project, though likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects on several fronts, is nevertheless in the public interest.

End? of a “Twenty-two-Year Odyssey” for Delorie Walsh

By Linda McKay-Panos

On July 30, 2013

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

PDF version: End? of a “Twenty-two-Year Odyssey” for Delorie Walsh

Case commented on: Walsh v Mobil Oil Canada, 2013 ABCA 238.

While several blogs have been written on the Walsh v Mobil Oil Canada case (see here, here and here), I was hoping not to have to write yet another one, and I really hope that the matter has come to a final conclusion, but I almost hesitate to so state. As noted by the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Justices Paperny and McDonald, with Justice O’Ferrall concurring in the result), Ms. Walsh could not have known that when she filed her discrimination complaint against her former employer in 1991, it would lead to the termination of her employment and to a “22-year odyssey” to seek a remedy for her situation. As noted by the Court, Walsh appeared before the Human Rights Tribunal four times, the Court of Queen’s Bench twice, and this current case is Ms. Walsh’s second time before the Alberta Court of Appeal.

Justice for the Blanding’s Turtle at the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal

By Shaun Fluker

On July 29, 2013

In Environmental, Protection of Species

PDF version: Justice for the Blanding’s Turtle at the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal

Case commented on: Prince Edward (County) v Ontario (Ministry of the Environment), [2013] OERTD No 40.

Sometimes an exploration into what is missing will reveal more than a study of what is. An examination of how differently things are done elsewhere can tell us a lot about our own ways. Okay, perhaps it is just easier for me to say this comment looks at a recent decision of Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal to explore what it reveals about Alberta law governing energy projects and endangered species. In this case, Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) revokes an approval issued by the Director (Ministry of the Environment) under the Green Energy Act, SO 2009, c 12 for the construction of a wind turbine project on a peninsula of Crown land bordering Lake Ontario. The Tribunal’s decision is based on its finding that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding’s turtle – a species listed as threatened under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, RSO 2007, c 6.

Arbitration, Disability and Human Rights Cases

By Linda McKay-Panos

On July 27, 2013

In Arbitration, Human Rights

PDF version: Arbitration, Disability and Human Rights Cases

Case commented on: AUPE v Alberta, 2013 ABCA 212.

This case involves the fairly technical issue of whether, in Alberta, a grievance involving a human rights issue should be resolved by an adjudicator who is entirely independent of the employer, who is a party. In this case, the collective agreement provided for the complaint to be resolved before a Designated Officer who was an employee of one of the parties, although not subject to the collective agreement. The Labour Relations Code, RSA 2000, c L-1 (Labour Code), section 135, provides that every collective agreement must include a dispute resolution mechanism, but does not contain any direct statement requiring that the arbitration mechanism must operate in circumstances absent a reasonable apprehension of bias (as is the case in some other provinces). There had been some prior cases involving section 135, but none of these involved a potential breach of both the collective agreement and the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 (AHRA).

Burnaby Refinery not a Priority Destination under Pipeline Tariff

By Jennifer Hocking

On July 26, 2013

In Energy, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

PDF version: Burnaby Refinery not a Priority Destination under Pipeline Tariff

Case commented on: Chevron Canada Limited Priority Destination Designation Application (15 July 2013) MH-002-2012 (NEB).

Most shippers on the Trans Mountain Pipeline will no doubt be pleased with the recent decision of the National Energy Board (NEB) denying a Priority Destination Designation for Chevron’s Burnaby Refinery. Chevron applied for an order designating Chevron’s Burnaby Refinery as a Priority Destination pursuant to section 1.58 of the Tariff of Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. The Burnaby Refinery serves a key function as it refines Alberta crude oil into gasoline for the Lower Mainland of BC.

Shell Jackpine JRP Report: Would the Real “Adaptive Management” Please Stand Up?

End? of a “Twenty-two-Year Odyssey” for Delorie Walsh

Justice for the Blanding’s Turtle at the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal

Arbitration, Disability and Human Rights Cases

Burnaby Refinery not a Priority Destination under Pipeline Tariff