ABLawg

Our faculty is in the midst of a unit review, which assesses our performance on a number of measures including research productivity and impact, as well as teaching and learning. As part of that review, and as current ABlawg Coordinator, I was asked by Associate Dean Research Jonnette Watson Hamilton to compile some information and statistics on ABlawg. We have decided to share our evidence of ABlawg’s impact with our readers to contribute to the ongoing conversation about the impact of law blogging (see e.g. this recent post on Slaw). It is also the season of the Clawbies, and if you like what you see here we would be grateful for your nomination.

Alberta’s Alcohol-Related Administrative Licence Suspension Regime: The Constitutional Challenge and the Challenge to the Evidence

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 6, 2013

In Civil Procedure, Constitutional, Evidence

PDF Version: Alberta’s Alcohol-Related Administrative Licence Suspension Regime: The Constitutional Challenge and the Challenge to the Evidence

Case commented on: Sahaluk v Alberta (Transportation Safety Board), 2013 ABQB 683

Several applicants are challenging the constitutionality of Alberta’s Alcohol-Related Administrative Licence Suspension Regime, which requires those charged with impaired driving-related offences to surrender their drivers’ licences to police and suspends them from driving until the charges are disposed of (when a conviction may result in further driving prohibitions under the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, with no credit given for the provincial suspension). This regime is found in section 88.1 of the Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6, which is being challenged on the basis that it violates the applicants’ rights under sections 7, 8 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is in pith and substance criminal law and therefore ultra vires the Province of Alberta. In this preliminary application, the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Services sought an order striking out parts of three affidavits filed on behalf of the applicants on the basis that they contained “frivolous, irrelevant or improper information” contrary to rule 3.68(4) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010.

Read More

The Continuing Fall-out from Stores Block: Guidance from the Alberta Utilities Commission on Utility Asset Disposition

By Nigel Bankes

On December 5, 2013

In Energy

PDF Version: The Continuing Fall-out from Stores Block: Guidance from the Alberta Utilities Commission on Utility Asset Disposition

Decision commented on: Alberta Utilities Commission, Utility Asset Disposition, Decision 2013-417, November 26, 2013

In ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd. v Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4 (Stores Block), a majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (per Justice Bastarache), the Court concluded that the customers of a regulated utility had no property interest in the assets of a utility company that were included in the rate base. Accordingly, when a utility sought the approval of the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) (now the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission)) for the disposition of a rate base asset outside the ordinary course of business, the EUB/AUC had no jurisdiction to require the utility, as a condition of the approval of the disposition, to allocate to the customers of the utility any share of the net proceeds of disposition beyond the depreciated book value of the asset in the utility’s accounts. In so ruling the Supreme Court of Canada reversed the long-standing practice of the EUB and its predecessors in sharing such gains between shareholders and customers. That long-standing practice is recounted in this decision at paras 19 – 32.

Supreme Court of Canada Expresses Its Opinion on Alberta Privacy Case

By Linda McKay-Panos

On December 4, 2013

In Constitutional, Labour/Employment, Supreme Court of Canada

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Expresses Its Opinion on Alberta Privacy Case

Case commented on: Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner v United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2013 SCC 62 (“AIPC v UFCW”)

This case out of Alberta has been the subject of other ABlawg posts (see here and here), and now the Supreme Court of Canada has made its views known on the constitutionality of Alberta’s privacy legislation. Clearly, the issues that were addressed were of interest across Canada as there were several interveners in the case, including the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario, the Privacy Commissioners of Canada, Ontario and British Columbia, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and labour and business groups.

Linking the California and Québec Emissions Trading Schemes

By Rolandas Vaiciulis

On December 3, 2013

In Climate Change

PDF Version: Linking the California and Québec Emissions Trading Schemes

Agreement Commented On: Agreement Between the California Air Resources Board and the Gouvernement Du Québec Concerning the Harmonization and Integration of Cap-and-Trade Programs for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In late September 2013, California and Québec signed an agreement to link their carbon emissions trading schemes effective January 1, 2014. This is the first linkage under the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) – a regional collaboration between British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, and California to establish a carbon reduction and trading scheme that is intended to produce an overall 15% reduction from 2005 level carbon emissions by 2020 amongst the participating jurisdictions. (For more detail on the WCI see here). Alberta is notably absent from the WCI.

ABlawg: Assessing Our Impact

Alberta’s Alcohol-Related Administrative Licence Suspension Regime: The Constitutional Challenge and the Challenge to the Evidence

The Continuing Fall-out from Stores Block: Guidance from the Alberta Utilities Commission on Utility Asset Disposition

Supreme Court of Canada Expresses Its Opinion on Alberta Privacy Case

Linking the California and Québec Emissions Trading Schemes