Page 3

Matter Commented On: Minister of Energy and Minerals, Ministerial Order 096/2024, Direction on Municipal Tax Requirements for Approving Licences

PDF Version: The Replacement Ministerial Directive on Well Transfers and Outstanding Municipal Taxes

On August 26, 2024, Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean signed Ministerial Order 096/2024 (M.O. 096/2024), a direction to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) pursuant to section 67 of the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c R-17.3 (REDA). M.O. 096/2024 replaces a previous ministerial order from March 2023, with the most significant change being that the AER is now enabled to approve transfers of oil and gas licenses out of the inventories of bankrupt companies so long as the transferee owes less than $20,000 in municipal taxes.

Court of Appeal Grants Permission to Appeal Another AER Coal Decision

By Nigel Bankes

On October 8, 2024

In Administrative Law, Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision Commented On: Ranchland (Municipal District No 66) v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 309 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Court of Appeal Grants Permission to Appeal Another AER Coal Decision

While my recent coal posts (e.g. here and here) have focused on the efforts of Benga/Northback to resurrect (literally bring back from the dead) its Grassy Mountain Project, it is important to acknowledge that the coal policy decisions (the “flip/flop”) of the Kenney and Smith governments have triggered other litigation. Some of that litigation involves claims to compensation for alleged regulatory takings or constructive expropriation (see Cabin Ridge Project Limited v Alberta, 2024 ABKB 189 (CanLII)) but the case that is the subject of this post deals with other issues – reclamation and opaque AER decision-making.

The Kids are Alright (We Think)

By Fraser Gordon

On October 7, 2024

In Family

By: Fraser Gordon

Case Commented On: Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement, Director) v LL, 2024 ABCJ 177

PDF Version: The Kids are Alright (We Think)

Do the provisions for initial custody under s 21.1(1), Child, Youth, and Family Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c C-12 (CYFEA) allow a Court to deny the Director’s application and return a child to his or her guardians, on conditions? Recent cases on this question, all arising out of the Alberta Court of Justice sitting in Edmonton, indicate that this is within the Court’s powers; other regions, however, have not followed these cases, and continue to apply the more restrictive reading of s 21.1, holding a Court is only able to either (1) order the child into custody, or (2) return to the custody of the child’s guardian.

The Liabilities Go Up and the Security Stays the Same: The Oilsands Mine Financial Security Program in 2024

By Drew Yewchuk

On October 4, 2024

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk and Martin Olszynski

Documents Commented on: Mine Financial Security Program – Security and Liability (2024); Annual Mine Financial Security Program Submissions 2024 Submissions for 2023 Reporting Year

PDF Version: The Liabilities Go Up and the Security Stays the Same: The Oilsands Mine Financial Security Program in 2024

This is our annual update post in response to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) posting the annual submissions for the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). The MFSP is ostensibly Alberta’s system for obtaining financial security for the closure of oilsands and coal mines. See last year’s post here, and a lengthy discussion of the problems with the MFSP in our 2023 paper coauthored with Andrew Leach, “Not Fit for Purpose: Oil Sands Mines and Alberta’s Mine Financial Security Program”.

Modern Treaties, Shared Territories and Party Status in Aboriginal Title Litigation

By Nigel Bankes

On September 23, 2024

In Aboriginal, Indigenous, Treaty Rights

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: Malii v British Columbia, 2024 BCSC 85 (CanLII), aff’d Nisg?a’a Nation v Malii, 2024 BCCA 313 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Modern Treaties, Shared Territories and Party Status in Aboriginal Title Litigation

Overlapping claims and shared territories present challenges in the negotiation of modern treaties that are best worked out by the Indigenous Nations themselves, drawing on their own laws and protocols. But this does not always prove possible and one party or another may initiate litigation in the courts of the settler state. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon and there are now dozens of cases dealing with overlapping claims or shared territories in the context of modern treaty negotiations. One group of cases deals with the scenario in which Nation A is moving to finalize a modern treaty with the Crown, while Nation B takes the view that the territory encompassed by the proposed treaty is territory that Nation B also used more or less intensively. Nation B therefore files a competing claim and also seeks injunctive relief to prevent finalization or ratification of the proposed treaty. The courts have typically rejected applications for injunctive relief and the substantive claims may drag on for years if not decades. A case in point is the Benoanie litigation in which the applicant Nations with reserves in Northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan sought to enjoin ratification of the Nunavut Agreement: Fond du Lac Band et al v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, 1992 CanLII 2404 (FC).