ABLawg

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a hockey fan, although I would prefer to play shinny or watch my son’s beer league playoffs rather than watch an NHL game. I have much more sympathy for agricultural workers who continue to be excluded from Alberta’s Labour Relations Code, RSA 2000, c L-1, and for the workers recently laid off by XL Foods, than I do for locked out NHL players (although I have even less sympathy for the owners). So it was with some interest but not a lot of sympathy for either side that I read the recent decision of the Alberta Labour Relations Board in National Hockey League Players’ Association v Edmonton Oilers Hockey Corp, 2012 CanLII 58944.

Some Much Needed R&R: Revisiting and Relaxing the Test for Public Interest Standing in Canada

By Theresa Yurkewich

On October 18, 2012

In Constitutional, Intervenors and Standing

PDF version: Some Much Needed R&R: Revisiting and Relaxing the Test for Public Interest Standing in Canada

Case Considered: Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45

On September 21, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada revisited the doctrine of public interest standing in Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers Against Violence Society, affirming the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal to grant the Downtown Eastside Sex Workers Against Violence Society (the Society) public interest standing to challenge the prostitution provisions of the Criminal Code (ss 210 to 213). We comment on this Supreme Court decision for its potential to revise how the doctrine of public interest standing is applied by Alberta courts going forward.

Applicants to a Feed-in Tariff Program Must Expect Change

By Nigel Bankes

On October 16, 2012

In Administrative Law, Climate Change, Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Applicants to a Feed-in Tariff Program Must Expect Change

Case Commented On: Skypower CL 1 LP et al v Minister of Energy (Ontario) et al, 2012 ONSC 4979

In an earlier post entitled “Low carbon energy policies: vested rights, legitimate expectations and differential treatment in domestic and international law” (see here). I commented on a UK case involving changes to a feed-in tariff (FIT) program as well as a couple of ongoing international arbitrations against Canada involving provincial energy policies (one in British Columbia and one in Ontario, the Mesa Power arbitration). The Skypower decision which is the subject of this post involves changes to Ontario’s FIT program. The common theme of all of these cases are the legal implications for government where government changes its mind about the terms of incentive programs designed to encourage the uptake of low carbon forms of generation.

Walsh and Mobil Oil – The Long-Running Saga Continues

By Linda McKay-Panos

On October 10, 2012

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

PDF version: Walsh and Mobil Oil – The Long-Running Saga Continues

Decision commented on: Walsh v Mobil Canada, 2012 ABQB 527

After several tribunal and court proceedings, taking place over the past 20+ years, Mobil was found to have discriminated against Delorie Walsh and to have retaliated against her for complaining by terminating her employment. There have been several blogs written about this case (see “Court of Appeal Rules in Walsh Case: End of a Seventeen Year Journey?”and “Justice Received After Nineteen Years Delay in Walsh Case: What’s to blame?”).

Cleaning Up Coal II

By Astrid Kalkbrenner

On October 4, 2012

In Climate Change, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Astrid Kalkbrenner

PDF Version: Cleaning Up Coal II

Regulations Commented On: Federal Regulations “Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Generation of Electricity Regulations” as of 30 August 2012, (Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 146, No 19, SOR/2012-167)

On 27 August 2011 the federal government published proposed regulations on the “Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-Fired Generation of Electricity” (the “Draft Regulations”) (see my previous ABlawg post Cleaning up Coal). The Draft Regulations were open for comments for a 60-day public consultation period. Environment Canada received over 5000 submissions during the consultation period, including submissions from 4 provincial governments, 16 electricity industry corporations and system operators, 17 other industry corporations and associations, 6 Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and from the general public. The Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement (RIAS) for the Regulations acknowledges that the comments and extensive discussions with industry and provinces led to refinements of the Draft Regulations which in its final version provides greater flexibility to industry, while respecting the draft regulatory framework and maintaining the contribution of the Regulations to meeting Canada’s Copenhagen target (for the RIAS see Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 146, No 19, SOR/2012-167, 2002 at 2003). On 30 August 2012, the final Regulations were published as a regulation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), SC 1999, c 33.

Hockey Night in Alberta

Some Much Needed R&R: Revisiting and Relaxing the Test for Public Interest Standing in Canada

Applicants to a Feed-in Tariff Program Must Expect Change

Walsh and Mobil Oil – The Long-Running Saga Continues

Cleaning Up Coal II