ABLawg

Cleaning Up Coal

On October 26, 2011

By: Astrid Kalkbrenner

Regulations Commented On: Federal Draft Regulations “Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-Fired Generation of Electricity Regulations” as of 27 August 2011

On 27 August 2011 the federal government published proposed regulations on the “Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-Fired Generation of Electricity” (the “Regulations”). The Regulations are open for comments for a 60-day public consultation period. The final Regulations will be published next year.

Third Edition of the JSS Barristers Rules

By Admin

On October 24, 2011

In Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court

As noted in previous posts, in its newsletter titled JSS Barristers Rules JSS Barristers provides summaries of cases considering the new Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010.

Issue 3 of the Newsletter and updated Cumulative Summary are now available here.

The JSS Barristers website, www.jssbarristers.ca, features a Cumulative Summary of Court Decisions which considers 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. It is 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.

Those who are interested in receiving future editions of JSS Barristers Rules can subscribe here.

The Fading Federal Presence in Environmental Assessment and the Muting of the Public Interest Voice

By Arlene Kwasniak

On October 19, 2011

In Environmental

PDF version: The Fading Federal Presence in Environmental Assessment and the Muting of the Public Interest Voice

Topic: Federal environmental assessment and effective public participation update

Good environmental assessment followed by well crafted permits, regulation, monitoring and follow-up responsive to the assessment, results in better planned projects, fewer environmental impacts, and often net environmental and social sustainability gains. The legislative authority for the federal government to carry out the assessment is found in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (SC 1992, c 37) (“CEAA“) and regulations. The federal government may assess a project when it has constitutional jurisdiction over an area that may be impacted by a project, and, generally, where the federal government has permitting authority over the project or an aspect of it, all as set out in the CEAA and regulations. These areas include fisheries, navigation, migratory birds, federal lands, Aboriginal interests, nuclear facilities, interprovincial and international matters. Having the exclusive right to regulate in these and other areas, only the federal government can do a fully responsive job in assessing impacts. This is because only the federal government is in a position to know what information it needs in the environmental assessment process in order to determine whether it should provide the permit for the project when taking into account likely environmental impacts. If the project does go ahead (like most projects do) only the federal government is in a position to know what it needs during the assessment process in order to properly mitigate and regulate impacts, especially on areas within its jurisdiction. Such mitigation and alteration could include project alterations, monitoring, follow up conditions, and adaptive management measures that may require the proponent to change environmental management because of unexpected impacts. As well, as the responsible protector of the public interest with respect to matters under its jurisdiction, only the federal government can wholly take into account the public and national interest during the environmental assessment and following regulatory processes.

Accounting issues left unresolved in split title litigation

By Nigel Bankes

On October 14, 2011

In Oil & Gas

PDF version: Accounting issues left unresolved in split title litigation

Case considered: Anderson v Amoco Canada Oil and Gas Co, 2011 ABCA 268

The Court of Appeal has finally brought an end to the phase gas, split title litigation known under the style of cause of Anderson v Amoco. The Court did so (at the behest of the petroleum owners (the defendants)) under the cover of the drop dead rule of the old Rules of Court. As a result of this decision the accounting issues, one of the key issues in split title litigation which has been around since the Privy Council’s decision in Borys v CPR, [1953] AC 217, will remain unresolved. While this dismissal will bind the particular plaintiffs listed in this litigation it will not preclude disgruntled gas owners from returning to the fray in the future – either individually or as part of a class action. Thus, while the defendants and their lawyers may have cracked open a few bottles of champagne last week to celebrate the end of this long-running litigation I am not sure that the accounting issues related to production from split title lands are going to go away.

State Responsibility for Protection against Domestic Violence: The Case of Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales)

By Jennifer Koshan

On October 10, 2011

In Human Rights, International Law, State Responses to Violence

PDF version: State Responsibility for Protection against Domestic Violence: The Case of Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales)

Case considered: Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al v United States, Case 12.626, Report No. 80/11 (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, August 17, 2011)

On August 17, 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) released its merits report in the case of Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) and the United States. The case concerns states’ positive obligations to use due diligence in responding to situations of domestic violence, and is the first such case involving the U.S. to be considered by the IACHR. In what many are calling a landmark decision, the IACHR found that the United States had breached several Articles of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man in relation to its obligations to Lenahan and her children. This post will summarize the IACHR decision and analyze the implications of the case in Canada, particularly in provinces such as Alberta which have civil domestic violence legislation.