PDF version: The Top Ten Canadian Legal Ethics Stories – 2012
At the blog Legal Ethics Forum John Steele recently published a list of the top ten legal ethics stories in America in 2012 (here). With contributions from Adam Dodek (University of Ottawa), Malcolm Mercer (McCarthy Tetrault), Richard Devlin (Dalhousie), and other members of the Canadian Legal Ethics Listserv, here is my articulation of a Canadian edition:
Since 2005, the Canadian Law Blog Awards, (Clawbies), a project of Stem Legal Web Enterprises, has annually presented category awards to blogs published the Canadian legal industry (see Lawblogs.ca). The Clawbies website notes that when the Canadian Law Blog Awards started there were but 43 law blogs in the running, now there are over 400. This makes the ABlawg particularly honoured and thrilled to be the recipient of the 2012 Best Law School/Law Professor Blog.
Here is the text that accompanied the New Year’s Eve announcement:
… Best Law School/Law Professor Blog
This is always one of our toughest calls, since the quality of Canadian legal academic blogs is uniformly high. This year, however, our choice was made easier by the outstanding performance by ABlawg, the University of Calgary Faculty of Law Blog. Relevant and well-read beyond the walls of academia, the ABlawg is frequently consulted by practitioners throughout the province of Alberta, and it’s the rare law school periodical of any type that can lay claim to that accomplishment.
ABlawg is indebted to many for this accomplishment, praise, and honor, including its long-time supporters, excellent contributors, engaged readers, enthusiastic commentators, tireless editorial staff and volunteers, and, of course, those who showed their appreciation and support by nominating ABlawg for an award. Many thanks to all.
ABlawg wishes a peaceful, optimistic, and Happy New Year’s to all.
PDF Version: Confidentiality versus Access to Information
Case commented on: Edmonton Police Service v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2012 ABQB 595
Introduction
In any society, a healthy balance is needed to protect personal and private information, whilst also allowing individuals and groups access to information that is in the public interest. In Alberta, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIPPA) sets out the rules that govern the collection, use or disclosure of personal information by public bodies. It also provides a method of requesting access to information which is not available through other means.
Cases commented on: University of Alberta v Chang, 2012 ABCA 324 (CanLII) and Cojocaru (Guardian Ad Litem) v British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Center (Supreme Court of Canada Case number 34304)
The Alberta Court of Appeal decision in University of Alberta v Chang – from which the quote in the title of this post was taken (para 18) – was released November 13. The judgments appealed from consisted of cut-and-pasted excerpts taken verbatim from the written arguments of counsel for both parties and raised (in)sufficiency of reasons issues. The Court of Appeal decided the matters would have to be re-argued and re-heard in order to receive “a proper adjudication.” Coincidently, the Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal from a different copy-and-paste judgment on November 13, although it reserved its judgment and it will probably be months before a decision in Cojocaru (Guardian Ad Litem) v British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Center is handed down. Although both are copy-and-paste judgments, Cojocaru is quite different from Chang on its facts. The trial decision in Cojocaru was almost totally copied-and-pasted, but exclusively from the plaintiff’s written arguments. The Cojocaru case therefore raised issues of bias not raised by Chang. It will be interesting to see whether the approach adopted by the Supreme Court to decide Cojocaru will define the law for all copy-and-paste judgments. It could if the court decided the source of a judge’s reasons is irrelevant to determining their sufficiency.
PDF version: How the Canadian Forces defended the Sprague’s Pipit
Decisions considered:
Decision Statement issued November 30, 2012 re: Cenovus (formerly EnCana) Shallow Gas Infill Development Project proposed for the Suffield National Wildlife Area, online here.
Re: EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project – Review Panel Report under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, EUB Decision 2009-008, online here (the “2009 Panel Report”).
In October 2008 a joint review panel constituted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, SC 1992, c 37 heard submissions and evidence from EnCana Corporation as the proponent of a proposed shallow gas well project (up to 1275 wells) to be located at the Canadian Forces Base Suffield National Wildlife Area in southeastern Alberta (the “Cenovus gas project”). The panel also heard submissions and evidence from other interested parties such as Environment Canada, the Department of National Defence, and a coalition of environmental groups including the Alberta Wilderness Association. Being a project located on federal lands (a national wildlife area designated under the Canada Wildlife Act, RSC 1985, c W-9), provincial departments such as Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development played a minimal role in the proceedings. The joint review panel issued its assessment on January 27, 2009, essentially recommending to the federal Minister of Environment that the Cenovus gas project should not proceed until (1) critical habitat was designated for 5 listed species under the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 [SARA], and (2) the project was designed to ensure it would not be located within these designated critical habitat areas or alternatively was expressly permitted to do so under the Species at Risk Act (2009 Panel Report at 171). The Minister of Environment responded on November 30, 2012 with a Decision Statement issued under section 54 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, SC 2012, c 19, s 52 (CEAA 2012) declaring that the Cenovus gas project was likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that are not justified in the circumstances. Section 6 of CEAA 2012 prohibits Cenovus from proceeding with the Cenovus gas project and section 7 prohibits a federal authority from approving the project. That is the news. What follows is some commentary.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén
