ABLawg

JSS BARRISTERS RULES

On March 7, 2012

Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP is pleased to provide summaries of recent Court Decisions which consider the Alberta Rules of Court and comment on the application of the new Rules. JSS BARRISTERS RULES provides a convenient overview of how the Courts are interpreting the new Rules.

The fourth edition of the JSS BARRISTERS RULES Newsletter is now available on our website at www.jssbarristers.ca. Our website also features a Cumulative Summary of Court Decisions which consider the Alberta Rules of Court. The Cumulative Summary of the Rules is organized by the Rule considered, and includes an expanded summary of the Decisions including key quotations from the Decisions. The Cumulative Summary will continue to be updated regularly to ensure that it provides an ongoing and current resource for those interested in the consideration of the Rules of Court on a cumulative basis

Future JSS Barristers Rules Newsletter issues will be available online at www.jssbarristers.ca. If you would like to review past publications of JSS BARRISTERS RULES or receive electronic issues of future JSS BARRISTERS RULES via email when they are published, please visit our website at www.jssbarristers.ca.

Competing Uses of Geological Space: Resolving Conflicts Between Production and Natural Gas Storage

By Nigel Bankes

On February 29, 2012

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Competing Uses of Geological Space: Resolving Conflicts Between Production and Natural Gas Storage

Decision Commented On: Kallisto Energy Corp. Application for a Well Licence Crossfield East Field, 2012 ABERCB 005, February 24, 2012

This decision deals with the potential for conflict between conventional oil and gas operations and natural gas storage projects.

The idea of resource use or landscape level conflicts is familiar to us in the context of the use of the surface. Consider, for example, the conflicts between recreation and forestry interests, between forestry and oil sands or conventional oil and gas exploration. The idea of competing uses of the subsurface is less familiar but our search for new resources or the application of new technologies to known resources is increasing the potential for those subsurface conflicts. High pressure fracturing operations to stimulate production either from shallow oil formations or deeper shale gas formations raises concerns about the effect of these operations on potable groundwater resources, and proposals to sequester carbon dioxide in saline formations or depleted oil or gas reservoirs raises concerns of sterilizing hydrocarbon resources. The province’s new CCS regime explicitly addresses this scenario through a provision in the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, (OGCA) RSA 2000, c O-6, s. 39(1.1) which provides that the ERCB “may not approve a scheme for the disposal of captured carbon dioxide to an underground formation…unless the [applicant] satisfies the Board that the injection of the captured carbon dioxide will not interfere with (a) the recovery or conservation of oil or gas, or (b) an existing use of the underground formation for the storage of oil or gas.”

I Fought the Law: Civil Disobedience and the Law in Canada

By Jennifer Koshan

On February 27, 2012

In Constitutional, Human Rights, Municipal Law

PDF version: I Fought the Law: Civil Disobedience and the Law in Canada

Cases commented on: Calgary (City) v Bullock (Occupy Calgary), 2011 ABQB 764;
Batty v City of Toronto, 2011 ONSC 6862; R v SA, 2011 ABPC 269; R v Charlebois, 2011 ABPC 238, etc.

On February 1, 2012, I participated in a public forum entitled “Civil Disobedience: Concept, Law and Practice” organized by the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership. This post is an elaboration of my remarks at the forum on how civil disobedience is handled under Canadian law. I will review some recent cases on civil disobedience, including the Occupy litigation, to examine issues such as whether civil disobedience may be protected under the Charter, and if not, what sorts of sanctions protestors might expect to face.

Federal Court of Appeal confirms that a SARA protection statement must offer the critical habitat of a listed species real legal and non-discretionary protection

By Nigel Bankes

On February 23, 2012

In Administrative Law, Protection of Species

Case commented on: Minister of Fisheries and Oceans v. David Suzuki Foundation (the Killer Whale case) 2012 FCA 40

PDF Version: Federal Court of Appeal confirms that a SARA protection statement must offer the critical habitat of a listed species real legal and non-discretionary protection

A unanimous Federal Court of Appeal in a decision authored by Justice Mainville has largely affirmed Justice Russell’s decision at trial in a case dealing with the legal protection of the critical habitat of two populations of killer whale listed as threatened or endangered under the terms of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), SC 2002, c 29. ABlawg’s post on the trial decision is available here: “SARA has a spine as well as teeth.”

Refining Vexatious Litigant and Vexatious Spokesperson Jurisprudence

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On February 21, 2012

In Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court, Vexatious Litigants

Case considered: Allen v Gray, 2012 ABQB 66

PDF version: Refining Vexatious Litigant and Vexatious Spokesperson Jurisprudence

Alberta’s new vexatious litigant provisions have been in force for almost five years now and a useful body of precedent has been developed. Novel points continue to arise, but these tend to be minor ones. Nevertheless, Allen v Gray makes three useful legal points: (1) case law from before the 2007 amendments continues to be useful, in part because the term “vexatious” is undefined; (2) it is irrelevant whether the alleged vexatious litigant is prosecuting (or defending) his or her own action or acting as an agent for another person (the “vexatious spokesperson”); and (3) the new provisions are of no help in preventing vexatious administrative proceedings.