ABLawg

Raising Questions About the Use of an Offset For Compliance with Carbon Emission Reduction Obligations

On June 13, 2013

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Raising Questions About the Use of an Offset For Compliance with Carbon Emission Reduction Obligations

Case Commented On: Citizen’s Climate Lobby and Our Children’s Earth Foundation v California Air Resources Board (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, January 25, 2013, Case number CGC-2-519544)

This comment examines a recent judicial review decision by the Superior Court of California dismissing a challenge to the legality of the carbon emission offset regime established by California’s Air Resources Board (CARB). The petitioners in this case alleged the offset regime does not comply with its parent statute – the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, (California, AB 32) – and thus the CARB does not have legal authority to implement it. The essence of the claim was that a carbon emission offset created by the CARB regime would not necessarily represent the real and demonstrable carbon emission reduction required by the legislation. The Court ruled the offset regime created and administered by the CARB complies with the legislation.

Alberta Energy Regulator: Split Jurisdiction Implications for Crown Consultation?

By David Laidlaw

On June 11, 2013

In Aboriginal, Energy

PDF version: Alberta Energy Regulator: Split Jurisdiction Implications for Crown Consultation?

Legislation considered: Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c 17; Designation of Constitutional Decision Makers Regulation, AR 69/2006

The new single Alberta Energy Regulator under the Responsible Energy Development Act, has been proclaimed in force in part (OC 163/2013) on June 4, 2013 to be effective June 17, 2013. Section 21 of that Act, in force on June 17, 2013, states that the Alberta Energy Regulator has no jurisdiction to assess the adequacy of Crown consultation:

Crown consultation with aboriginal peoples

21. The Regulator has no jurisdiction with respect to assessing the adequacy of Crown consultation associated with the rights of aboriginal peoples as recognized and affirmed under Part II of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Roundtable on Quebec v A: Searching for Clarity on Equality

By Jennifer Koshan

On June 5, 2013

In Constitutional, Human Rights

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Roundtable on Quebec v A: Searching for Clarity on Equality

Case Commented On: Quebec (Attorney General) v A, 2013 SCC 5 (case summary available here)

On May 13, 2013, we led the Faculty of Law’s first roundtable discussion of the summer on the Supreme Court’s most recent equality rights decision, Quebec (Attorney General) v A. Participants included faculty members, researchers from the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre and Alberta Law Reform Institute, and a number of JD and graduate students. Coincidentally, a virtual roundtable on the case is also ongoing at the moment, moderated by Sonia Lawrence, Director of Osgoode Hall’s Institute for Feminist Legal Studies (IFLS), with participation from law profs Robert Leckey, Hester Lessard, Bruce Ryder, and Margot Young. Many of the issues raised in the IFLS discussion were also debated in our roundtable.

Hop(p)s and Water: A Nice Little Water Rights Decision Out of British Columbia

By Nigel Bankes

On May 31, 2013

In Administrative Law, Natural Resources

PDF version: Hop(p)s and Water: A Nice Little Water Rights Decision Out of British Columbia

Decision commented on: Carolyn Hopp v Assistant Regional Manager Water, 2012-WAT-033(a) (EAB).

The Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) of British Columbia is starting to build up a body of jurisprudence on water rights and especially water licensing decisions in the context of fully allocated or fully recorded streams.

New Developments in Long Running Alberta Privacy Case

By Linda McKay-Panos

On May 30, 2013

In Privacy

PDF version: New Developments in Long Running Alberta Privacy Case

Decision considered: Alberta Teachers’ Association v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2013 ABQB 106.

This case, which has a long judicial history, has been followed closely by those interested in information and privacy procedures. The issues raised by the decision were discussed in my previous ABlawg post “Supreme Court of Canada Saves Timing for the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner” here. Also see Alice Woolley’s ABlawg post on this decision ‘True Questions of Jurisdiction: Administrative Law’s Unicorns” here. The current case is interesting because the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) now seeks to amend its Originating Application to the Court of Queen’s Bench to include a request for declarations that selected provisions of the Personal Information Protection Act SA 2003, c P-6.5 (PIPA) and the PIPA Regulation, Alta Reg 366/2003 are unconstitutional, or that the adjudicator’s order is unconstitutional.