ABLawg - - Page 37

By: Laura Buckingham

Case Commented On: James v Belanger, 2023 ABKB 34 (CanLII)

PDF Version: There’s No Place Like Home: Why the Dower Act Remains Relevant

Editors’ Note: February 6 to 10 is Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Week at the University of Calgary. We will be publishing a number of posts this week that touch on EDI issues. This first post deals with dower rights and the inequalities experienced by unmarried spouses. For more on the Faculty of Law’s commitment to taking action on EDI issues, see here.

James v Belanger, 2023 ABKB 34 is interesting because of something that isn’t mentioned in the decision. The case is not about the Dower Act, RSA 2000, c D-15. If the Dower Act applied, the whole dispute might have been avoided. A retired man would be able to stay in the home he shared with his partner for more than 15 years.

Judicial Review on the Vires of Subordinate Legislation: Full Vavilov, Partial Vavilov or No Vavilov?

By Shaun Fluker

On February 6, 2023

In Administrative Law, Conflict of Laws

By: Shaun Fluker

Cases Commented On: Auer v Auer, 2022 ABCA 375 (CanLII) and TransAlta Generation Partnership v Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs), 2022 ABCA 381 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Judicial Review on the Vires of Subordinate Legislation: Full Vavilov, Partial Vavilov or No Vavilov?

This comment examines two decisions issued concurrently by the Alberta Court of Appeal in late November 2022 that reject the application of a standard of review analysis when reviewing the vires (aka legality) of a ‘true’ regulation, (the need for the modifier is explained below). This is a topic that I have casually followed for some time. In 2016 I wrote Does the Standard of Review Analysis Apply to a Vires Determination of Subordinate Legislation? and in 2018 I wrote Judicial Review on the Vires of Subordinate Legislation. Together these earlier posts describe an uncertainty that has reigned for years over whether a standard of review analysis applies to the vires determination of subordinate legislation. In its overhaul on standard of review in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII) (Vavilov), the Supreme Court of Canada did not explicitly address this question (for my overview on standard of review under Vavilov see Vavilov on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law). The uncertainty has evolved into a jurisprudential conflict. In Portnov v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 171 (CanLII) (Portnov), the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that a Vavilov standard of review analysis applies to the vires determination of regulations (Portnov at paras 23 – 28; see more recently Innovative Medicines Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 210 (CanLII)). In Auer v Auer, 2022 ABCA 375 (CanLII) (Auer) and TransAlta Generation Partnership v Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs), 2022 ABCA 381 (CanLII) (TransAlta Generation) the Court of Appeal rules that Vavilov may partially apply to some regulations but not ‘true’ regulations (Justice Feehan departs from the majority in Auer on this point: Auer at para 117)).

Law Society of Alberta to Hold a Special Meeting to Debate its Power to Mandate Indigenous Cultural Competency Training

By Koren Lightning-Earle

On February 3, 2023

In Aboriginal, Announcements, Legal Education

By: Koren Lightning-Earle, Hadley Friedland, Anna Lund, Sarah N Kriekle, Heather (Hero) Laird

Matter commented on: Notice of a Special Meeting of the Law Society of Alberta dated January 26, 2023

PDF Version: Law Society of Alberta to Hold a Special Meeting to Debate its Power to Mandate Indigenous Cultural Competency Training

Editor’s Note: This is a guest post from our colleagues at the University of Alberta and in the legal profession in Alberta. A number of members of the University of Calgary Faculty of Law have signed the open letter referenced later in this post, a copy of which can be found here.

This post provides background information about the Special Meeting of the Law Society of Alberta, which will be held on Monday February 6, 2023. At Monday’s meeting, practicing lawyers in the Province of Alberta will be asked to vote on whether their self-governing organization should be able to mandate training on specific topics to ensure that lawyers in the province are minimally competent.

Annotations of NRCB Review Decisions Under the Agricultural Operations Practices Act

By Michael Wenig

On January 30, 2023

In Land Use

By: Michael Wenig

Matter Commented On: Decisions of the Natural Resources Conservation Board under the Agricultural Operation Practices Act, RSA 2000, c. A-7

PDF Version: Annotations of NRCB Review Decisions Under the Agricultural Operations Practices Act

This post is a heads-up about my recently updated annotations of Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) “review” decisions under the Agricultural Operation Practices Act, RSA 2000, c. A-7 (AOPA).

Part II of AOPA gives the NRCB regulatory authority over Alberta-based “confined feeding operations” (CFOs), which are commonly known as intensive livestock operations. (Part I of the AOPA provides so-called “right-to-farm” protection for “agricultural operations” and a system for resolving nuisance claims by those operations’ neighbours. See e.g. Brenda Heelan Powell, Agricultural Lands – Law and Policy in Alberta (Environmental Law Centre, Nov 2019) at 76.) Before AOPA came into effect in 2002, municipalities were the primary regulators of CFOs through their issuance of development permits. This permitting function is linked to municipalities’ land use planning roles.

BC Climate Accountability Law is Justiciable (But Weak Climate Plan is Reasonable)

By David V Wright

On January 27, 2023

In Environmental

By: David V. Wright

Case Commented On: Sierra Club of British Columbia Foundation v British Columbia (Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy), 2023 BCSC 74

PDF Version: BC Climate Accountability Law is Justiciable (But Weak Climate Plan is Reasonable)

In a judgement released last week, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC) ruled that requirements to report on progress toward climate change targets under the Climate Change Accountability Act, SBC 2007, c 42 (CCAA) are justiciable. This short post provides context for the decision in Sierra Club of British Columbia Foundation v British Columbia (Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy), 2023 BCSC 74 (Sierra Club), summarizes key points, and reflects on potential implications. Overall, this BCSC judgement is a welcome development in the climate change litigation context where justiciability is typically a live and uncertain issue.

There’s No Place Like Home: Why the Dower Act Remains Relevant

Judicial Review on the Vires of Subordinate Legislation: Full Vavilov, Partial Vavilov or No Vavilov?

Law Society of Alberta to Hold a Special Meeting to Debate its Power to Mandate Indigenous Cultural Competency Training

Annotations of NRCB Review Decisions Under the Agricultural Operations Practices Act

BC Climate Accountability Law is Justiciable (But Weak Climate Plan is Reasonable)