ABLawg

A single window for the permitting of energy projects in Alberta: who will look out for the chickens?

On May 16, 2011

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

PDF version: A single window for the permitting of energy projects in Alberta: who will look out for the chickens?

Report commented on: Enhancing Assurance: Developing an integrated energy resources regulator, a discussion document, May 2011

In a discussion paper released on May 9, 2011 under a covering message from Premier Stelmach, the provincial government has announced its intention to create a single window for the permitting of energy projects in the province. The proposal envisages a single new board that will have all of the current responsibilities of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) plus the following additional responsibilities (as they pertain to energy projects including conventional oil and gas, oilsands, and coal – and in the future perhaps mining):

1. The responsibilities currently vested in Alberta Environment under the terms of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, (EPEA) RSA 2000c. E-12, and the Water Act, RSA 2000, c.W-3 to conduct EIAs, issue licences and authorizations under the Water Act and EPEA and to deal with reclamation and remediation on private land.

2. The responsibilities currently vested in Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) to issue public land dispositions including mineral surface leases, and to deal with reclamation and remediation on public land.

Does this make sense?

Leon’s Furniture and Privacy: When is it Unreasonable to be Reasonable?

By Linda McKay-Panos

On May 11, 2011

In Privacy

PDF version: Leon’s Furniture and Privacy: When is it Unreasonable to be Reasonable?

Case considered: Leon’s Furniture Limited v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2011 ABCA 94

This significant privacy case illustrates some of the difficulties courts (and many lawyers and law students) experience with the appropriate legal tests for judicial review of administrative decisions. Generally, on judicial review, courts will apply a high level of deference for the decisions of tribunals, and will examine whether the decision was “reasonable.” Over the course of several years, the courts have determined that when reviewing a decision of an administrative tribunal, where that tribunal has expertise in the area, or the review involves a question that is within the core function of the tribunal, the standard of review is “reasonableness.” On the other hand, the reviewing court will employ the standard of “correctness” when the situation calls for the interpretation of a question of law that is not specifically within the area of expertise of the tribunal. One of the key issues in this case is whether the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s interpretation of the reasonableness standard provided under the Personal Information Protection Act, RSA 2000, c P-6.5 [“PIPA“] was reasonable.

Alberta’s CCS Disposition Scheme: the Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation

By Nigel Bankes

On May 9, 2011

In Carbon Capture and Storage, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Alberta’s CCS Disposition Scheme: the Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation

Regulation Commented On: Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation, A.R. 68/2011

The provincial government is making steady progress in implementing its plan to put in place a legal and regulatory framework for carbon capture and storage projects. The province passed legislation in the fall of 2010 (Bill 24, Carbon Capture and Storage Statutes Amendment Act, which I blogged here) to deal with pore space ownership issues and to provide a framework for granting agreements to sequester captured carbon dioxide (CO2) in that pore space; and in March 2011 it launched a Regulatory Framework Assessment (RFA) to review the current regulatory rules.

The most recent step is the promulgation (at the end of April) of the Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation, Alta. Reg. 68/2011. This regulation puts some meat on the framework established by the new Part 9 of the Mines and Minerals Act (RSA 2000, c. M-17 (MMA)). In particular, it describes in greater detail the elements of the two new forms of agreement (evaluation permits and carbon sequestration leases) and some of the content of monitoring, measuring and verification plans (MMV) and closure plans. The regulations also go some way towards clarifying the relationship between the Department of Energy and the Energy Resources Conservation Board in relation to some of the more technical aspects of MMV programs and closure plans.

Leave Granted in Fair Dealing in Education Case

By Greg Hagen

On May 6, 2011

In Intellectual Property

Application Commented On: Supreme Court of Canada Leave to Appeal decision in Alberta (Education) v. Access Copyright

On May 5, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal Alberta (Education) v. Access Copyright, 2010 FCA 198, in which the Federal Court of Appeal decided that it is not fair dealing under the Copyright Act for a teacher to copy copyrighted materials for distribution to his or her class. This decision has been criticized as being inconsistent with the approach to fair dealing followed in SOCAN v. Bell Canada, 2010 FCA 123, which found that streaming music previews to consumers is fair dealing, and in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, in which the Supreme Court of Canada found that copying legal research materials for lawyers is fair dealing.

This is an important case which could clarify the law of fair dealing in education. I will be blogging on this case in due course.

Vindication of a Residential Tenant’s Rights – At Least Temporarily

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On May 2, 2011

In Landlord/Tenant, Property

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Vindication of a Residential Tenant’s Rights – At Least Temporarily

Case Commented On: Lautner v Searle, 2011 ABQB 263

This very short decision by Master Walter H. Breitkreuz, Q.C., is about an unjustified and unsuccessful attempt by a landlord to quickly evict an elderly and ill tenant from rental premises that had been his home for more than 10 years. Memorandums of Decision – even 8 paragraph ones – are not often written about residential tenancy matters. But this is a victory by a tenant that deserves publicizing, even if the only apparent result of the victory is to extend the time that the tenant has to vacate the premises from 14 days to 3 months. Without publicity, there is no possibility of discouraging other landlords from acting in an equally heavy-handed manner.