ABLawg - - Page 315

Report commented on: Enhancing Assurance: Developing an integrated energy resources regulator, A Discussion Document, May 2011

It has been over a year since the latest proposal to move to a single regulator for energy development in Alberta was released (see Enhancing Assurance: Developing an integrated energy resources regulator, A Discussion Document, May 2011 (Discussion Document)). Many Albertans are likely asking what, if anything, has happened since then. This post outlines the proposal currently before government, updates readers on any progress made, and highlights the critical issues that ought to be addressed on a go-forward basis.

Transporting Liberty: Where Is The Track Heading?

By Ola Malik

On July 16, 2012

In Constitutional, Municipal Law

PDF version: Transporting Liberty: Where Is The Track Heading?

Case Considered: R v S.A., 2012 ABQB 311, overturning 2011 ABPC 269

In many Canadian cities and towns, public transit is the only available means for some citizens to go about their daily lives. Can a balance be found in denying access to public transit to those who would abuse this service and the rights of other users of that service, in order to be safe, secure, and free of harassment or intimidation? Or, have we come to a point where citizens who face the daily burden of harassment, rude and intimidating behaviour or interference from others on buses, trains and transit stops must simply accept that this is an inevitable cost of using a public transit service?

Low Carbon Energy Policies: Vested Rights, Legitimate Expectations, and Differential Treatment in Domestic and International Law

By Nigel Bankes

On July 13, 2012

In Administrative Law, Carbon Capture and Storage, Climate Change, Energy, International Law

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Low Carbon Energy Policies: Vested Rights, Legitimate Expectations, and Differential Treatment in Domestic and International Law

Cases and Matters Commented On: Secretary of State for Climate Change v Friends of the Earth and Others, [2012] EWCA Civ. 28, aff’g lower decision; Mesa Power Group LLC v Government of Canada, Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under Chapter Eleven of NAFTA, July 6, 2011; Mercer International Inc v Government of Canada, Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under Chapter Eleven of NAFTA, 26 January 2012, and request for arbitration (ICSID Additional Facility), April 30, 2012

Governments around the world are adopting a variety of low carbon and green energy policies designed to increase the share of renewable energy sources in the energy mix. In addition, some governments, including the government of Alberta, have also adopted policies to provide for the sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions where carbon fuels continue to make up a significant part of the energy mix. These policies often provide financial incentives to investors in order to persuade them to commit to the new technology. For example, many governments provide for feed-in-tariffs (FIT) to encourage the development of wind and solar energy. A FIT represents a commitment by the government directly or through the incumbent utility to purchase the output from the designated facility (e.g. wind generator, solar panels or biomass generation) at a specified price for a prescribed number of years (typically representing the amortization period of the asset). Such commitments are designed to be “bankable” in the sense that the proponent will be able to use the commitment to raise capital to fund the venture. Similarly, many governments have found it necessary to provide financial support (subsidies or “state aid” in the language of the European Union) for the first commercial scale carbon capture and storage projects. For example, the province of Alberta is currently providing support for three different sequestration related projects in the province (see here).

The implications of the Tsilhqot’in Case for the Numbered Treaties

By Nigel Bankes

On July 11, 2012

In Aboriginal, International Law

PDF version: The implications of the Tsilhqot’in Case for the Numbered Treaties

Cases Considered: Williams v British Columbia, 2012 BCCA 285, and Lameman v Alberta, 2012 ABQB 195

The unanimous decision of the British Columbia in Williams, (a.k.a. the Tsilhqot’in land claim case or the Brittany Triangle case) continues the trend in Canadian case law (beginning with R v Marshall; R v Bernard, 2005 SCR 43) of insisting that a claimant First Nation or other aboriginal people must establish exclusive occupation of particular tracts of land in order to obtain a declaration of aboriginal title. Indeed, the case comes close to suggesting, and as a matter of law, that a claimant people will hardly ever\never succeed on the basis of what the court describes as a territorial claim (at para 219) i.e. the claim that these lands (e.g. a particular watershed) are our lands because we were present in that territory (at para 206), living in accordance with our laws (including property laws) and using that territory to the exclusion of all others.

Gardening on Vacant Land –Through Calgary’s Lens

By David Laidlaw

On July 9, 2012

In Environmental, Municipal Law, Property

PDF version: Gardening on Vacant Land –Through Calgary’s Lens

Comment: Gardening on Vacant Land in Calgary – Part II

The ABlawg post Part I of Gardening on Vacant Land in Calgary, Verdant History, Volatile Endeavor, described the rich history of gardening on vacant land in Calgary, and discussed law and policy challenges posed by the Occupiers Liability Act, RSA 2000, c O-4. This ABlawg post turns to issues of vacant land use for gardening in Calgary.

The Proposed Single Energy Regulator: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Go from Here?

Transporting Liberty: Where Is The Track Heading?

Low Carbon Energy Policies: Vested Rights, Legitimate Expectations, and Differential Treatment in Domestic and International Law

The implications of the Tsilhqot’in Case for the Numbered Treaties

Gardening on Vacant Land –Through Calgary’s Lens