University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Proprietary estoppel is alive and well in Alberta (at least for the over fifties)

By

On November 21, 2012

In Property

PDF version: Proprietary estoppel is alive and well in Alberta (at least for the over fifties)

Case commented on: Parkdale Nifty Fifties Seniors Association v Calgary (City), 2012 ABCA 301

I confess that I don’t find the name “Nifty Fifties” especially endearing, especially when associated with the term “seniors.”  Indeed, it is disconcerting to learn from this decision that the qualifying age for entry to the plaintiff’s society is not some respectable, far-off, likely unattainable, age like 70, no, not even 65, but 50!! (the bar was apparently lowered from the 55 to 50 sometime post 1983).  Quite why any self-respecting 50 year old would voluntarily associate (self-identify) with an organization trumpeting this name is quite beyond me.  So, no sympathy with the plaintiff\respondent’s name, but lots of sympathy with the cause, and lots of interest in the idea of proprietary estoppel – indeed, notwithstanding the advancing years I still recall, without prompting, one of the leading proprietary estoppel cases I came across at law school in the UK, a case which rejoices in the name of Dillwyn v Llewelyn, [1862] 4 De GF & J 517, 45 ER 1285 (a case that doesn’t come to mind without also calling to mind Dylan Thomas’, Llareggub in Under Milk Wood – and for those not in the know, try that backwards); and yes, I digress.

Read More

Bill 2 the Responsible Energy Development Act and the Duty to Consult

By

On November 19, 2012

In Administrative Law, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas, Responsible Energy Development Act

PDF version: Bill 2 the Responsible Energy Development Act and the Duty to Consult

Proposals commented on: Bill 2, the Responsible Energy Development Act, Alberta and the First Nations Consultation Policy, Discussion Paper, (Fall 2012).

There has been a lively debate in the courts, tribunal decisions and the literature over the last few years as to the role of administrative tribunals in discharging or examining the Crown’s duty to consult aboriginal peoples when contemplating making decisions and developing policies which may adversely affect aboriginal or treaty rights.  There are two guiding rules.  First, a tribunal that has the authority to decide questions of law is presumed to have the jurisdiction to decide questions of constitutional law including the question of whether or not the Crown has satisfied its constitutional duty to consult and accommodate – provided that the constitutional question is rationally connected to a power or jurisdiction that the tribunal is exercising.  The legislature may rebut that presumption by removing all or part of that jurisdiction from a tribunal.  Second, a tribunal does not have the authority to discharge the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate unless that authority is expressly delegated to the tribunal.  The principal authority for all of this is Rio Tinto Alcan Inc v Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43 which I blogged at here.

Read More

The Big Picture – Supreme Court of Canada Sheds Light on Transfer Pricing

By

On November 16, 2012

In Supreme Court of Canada, Tax

PDF version: The Big Picture – Supreme Court of Canada Sheds Light on Transfer Pricing

Decision commented on: Canada v GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2012 SCC 52

Making Sense of Transfer Pricing

Multinational corporate groups often have entities which are located in various jurisdictions, according to the needs of the business and where different functions of the organization are conducted. In some instances, there is a need to price the products and services provided between the entities (and therefore between jurisdictions) – and this need is often derived from some advantage to performing certain functions in lower tax jurisdictions. For example, some corporations may price products or services at higher rates so that income in higher tax jurisdictions is decreased as a result of higher expense deductions, with these higher amounts being included in revenue of an entity in a lower tax jurisdiction. Some tax planning in this manner is appropriate, and often highly advantageous for competing successfully within our global economy. Transfer pricing rules are designed and in place to address unjustified skewing of profits and revenue toward lower tax jurisdictions.

Read More

An Overview of Bill 2: Responsible Energy Development Act – What are the changes and What are the issues?*

By

On November 15, 2012

In Administrative Law, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas, Responsible Energy Development Act

PDF version: An Overview of Bill 2: Responsible Energy Development Act – What are the changes and What are the issues?*

Bill commented on: Bill 2, Responsible Energy Development Act, The Legislative Assembly of Alberta, 1st Session, 28th Legislature

On the heels of a sweeping overhaul to federal legislation to streamline federal approval processes for major energy projects, it is now Alberta’s turn.  Bill 2 – the proposed Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA) proposes significant changes to the way oil and gas (and coal) projects are approved and regulated in the province.  This post provides an overview of the Bill by highlighting the key changes that will be made to the current regulatory regime and the issues they raise.

Read More

Bill 2 and its implications for landowner participation in energy project decision-making

By

On November 13, 2012

In Administrative Law, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas, Responsible Energy Development Act

PDF version: Bill 2 and its implications for landowner participation in energy project decision-making

Bill commented on: Bill 2, Responsible Energy Development Act, The Legislative Assembly of Alberta, First Session, 28th Legislature

I find it strange to be writing in defence of the current hearing practice at the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), but that is what I am about to do.  I find myself in this odd position because Bill 2 significantly reshapes the governing legislation on energy project hearings, and in doing so the Bill proposes to repeal existing statutory rights held by landowners under sections 26(2) and 28(1) the Energy Resources Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c E-10 (ERCA).  These existing statutory provisions provide a landowner or resident on the land upon which an energy project will be located, or those in very close proximity, with the right to an ERCB hearing to contest the project and the prospect of funding to construct their case.  Much has been written on ABlawg concerning these provisions (See various posts by myself and others here at the Faculty under the “Intervener and Standing” category, here. See also a short article I published in volume 111 of Resources (2011) entitled “Public Participation at the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board,” here. This post describes the changes proposed in Bill 2.

Read More

Page 324 of 438

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén