ABLawg

Amended Rules of Practice for the Alberta Energy Regulator: More Bad News for Landowners and Environmental Groups

On December 11, 2013

In Energy, Intervenors and Standing, Responsible Energy Development Act

PDF Version: Amended Rules of Practice for the Alberta Energy Regulator: More Bad News for Landowners and Environmental Groups

Legislation commented on: Alberta Energy Regulator Rules of Practice as amended by Alta Reg 203/2013

In the Fall of 2012 ABlawg published a series of entries concerning the enactment of the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c R-17.3 (REDA) and the transition to a single regulator for energy projects in Alberta. That transition is now underway. The Alberta Energy Regulator is responsible for the approval and ongoing oversight of energy projects – and will soon be responsible for all energy project approvals and oversight other than the disposition of mineral rights by Alberta Energy.

Read More

The Captive Audience Doctrine: Protecting the Unwilling Listener’s Right to Privacy from Unwanted Speech

By Ola Malik

On December 10, 2013

In Constitutional

PDF Version: The Captive Audience Doctrine: Protecting the Unwilling Listener’s Right to Privacy from Unwanted Speech

Matter commented on: Section 2(b) of the Charter and the Captive Audience Doctrine

Consider the following scenarios:

Your lunch on an outdoor patio on Stephen Avenue Mall is interrupted by someone with a bullhorn blaring religious commandments, telling you that if you don’t follow their God, you are going to Hell;
You have given up taking your Sunday afternoon naps because a protest group has set up in a neighbouring park and conducts its meetings with the use of amplification which can be heard in your living room;
While you wait in line in a government building to pay an invoice, you have no choice but to endure a prayer service being conducted by a grassroots religious organization in the lobby of the building;
You are walking to work and someone confronts you, asking you to join their charitable cause. You decline but the person follows you for several blocks, pressing you to change your mind and once that becomes futile, starts yelling at you.

ABlawg: Assessing Our Impact

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 9, 2013

In Blogs and Websites

PDF Version: ABlawg: Assessing Our Impact

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.