The Amendments to Bill 1

By: Martin Olszynski and Nigel Bankes

Matter commented on: The Government Amendments to Bill 1, Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act

PDF Version: The Amendments to Bill 1

As anticipated at the time that we posted our original critique of Bill 1, the Smith administration tabled a set of amendments to Bill 1 that were adopted in the Committee of the Whole and included in the version adopted on third reading early in the morning of December 8, 2022.  The amendments were tabled in the form of a single document and included two main changes: (1) a change to the harm trigger; and (2) the removal of the Henry VIII provisions. Continue reading →

Running Afoul the Separation, Division, and Delegation of Powers: The Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act

By: Martin Olszynski and Nigel Bankes

Legislation Commented on: Bill 1 – Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act

 PDF Version: Running Afoul the Separation, Division, and Delegation of Powers: The Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022, the provincial government unveiled its highly anticipated and controversial “Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act” (Bill 1). The promise to introduce some form of sovereignty legislation was the key plank of Premier Danielle Smith’s UCP leadership campaign this past summer and fall. An initial ABlawg post that drew from the general contours of  the legislation, as found in a 2021 policy document called the “Free Alberta Strategy,” expressed concerns that “the clearest and most immediate effects of such ideas is not sovereignty, nor changes to the confederation bargain, but rather a damaging blow to the rule of law and the basic building blocks of democratic governance.” Continue reading →

Sharing Geological Pore Space Disposal Capacity

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision commented on: 2022 ABAER 004, Pure Environmental Waste Management Ltd., Applications 1614037, 1784753, 1809825, 1928016, 1928017, 1928430, 30602032, 30608918, and 30608934 Hangingstone Project, October 20, 2022

PDF Version: Sharing Geological Pore Space Disposal Capacity

This decision is a follow-up decision to two decisions from 2020 dealing with Pure Environmental Waste Management’s Hangingstone waste disposal project: 2020 ABAER 004 and 2020 ABAER 005. I commented on those two decisions here: “More Competition For Underground Disposal Space” and I refer readers to that earlier comment for a more detailed account of the facts. Continue reading →

Tikanga Maori: The Application of Maori Law and Custom in Aotearoa/New Zealand

By: Kent McNeil

Matter Commented On: Ellis v The King, [2022] NZSC 114 (7 October 2022)

PDF Version: Tikanga Maori: The Application of Maori Law and Custom in Aotearoa/New Zealand

Editor’s Note: Please note that WordPress does not support the inclusion of accents on the Maori words in this post, but they appear in the official PDF version.

In October, New Zealand’s highest court released a landmark decision on the relationship between tikanga Maori (Maori law and practice) and the common law (for English translation of Maori terms, I rely on the Glossary in Carwyn Jones, New Treaty, New Tradition: Reconciling New Zealand and Maori Law (Victoria University Press, 2016) at xv-xvii). This decision has particular relevance for Canada because the place of Indigenous law in this nation is an emerging issue (Sébastien Grammond, “Recognizing Indigenous Law: A Conceptual Framework” (2022) 100:1 Can Bar Rev 1). In Reference to the Court of Appeal of Quebec in relation with the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2022 QCCA 185 (CanLII), the Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the validity (with a couple of exceptions not relevant to our discussion) of federal legislation that acknowledged inherent Indigenous jurisdiction to make laws that would be enforceable in Canadian courts (for a series of ABlawg posts on this reference, see here). As this decision is currently under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is especially pertinent to consider how the New Zealand Supreme Court has dealt with the application of tikanga Maori. Continue reading →

Grounding the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Proposal to Protect Vaccination Status

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Legislation Commented On: Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5

PDF Version: Grounding the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Proposal to Protect Vaccination Status

The Alberta Human Rights Act (AHRA) has been in the news lately as a result of Premier Danielle Smith’s announcement – consistent with her platform for leadership of the United Conservative Party and its promise of no more lockdowns – that she would seek an amendment to the AHRA to add vaccination status as a ground protected from discrimination (here, here and here). In her mandate letter to Minister of Justice Tyler Shandro, released on November 10, 2022, Smith included as her second priority – second only to a Sovereignty Act – the instruction to “take any necessary legislative or regulatory steps to prohibit discrimination on the basis of COVID-19 vaccination and/or booster status.” Continue reading →