Alberta’s Carbon Capture & Storage Land Grab And The Potential For Conflicts Of Subsurface Rights

Posted on March 9, 2022 by Nick Ettinger

By: Nick Ettinger, Renée Matthews & Rudiger Tscherning

PDF Version: Alberta’s Carbon Capture & Storage Land Grab And The Potential For Conflicts Of Subsurface Rights

Matter Commented On: Alberta’s Request for Full Project Proposals for Carbon Capture and Sequestration Hubs

On March 3, 2022, the Government of Alberta issued a province-wide Request for Full Project Proposals (RFPP) for carbon capture and sequestration hubs (CCS Hubs). This followed a more limited RFPP for CCS Hub(s) to service emissions from Alberta’s Industrial Heartland (IH), which closed on February 1, 2022. By the end of March 2022, Alberta Energy is expected to announce the successful proponents of the IH RFPP, who will receive permits to evaluate large amounts of publicly owned pore space for the eventual permanent sequestration of millions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). The RFPP for the rest of the province closes on May 2, 2022. Nigel Bankes has previously commented on the evolution of this process for pore space tenure dispositions (see here, here, and here). We’ve previously described the potential for conflicts arising from the subsurface convergence of CCS and critical minerals such as helium and lithium in Alberta (read our article here). This post examines the potential for conflicts of competing subsurface rights and interests arising from the current legislative scheme and the province’s rapid roll-out of CCS Hub dispositions. Continue reading →

Posted in Carbon Capture and Storage, Energy | Comments Off on Alberta’s Carbon Capture & Storage Land Grab And The Potential For Conflicts Of Subsurface Rights

Women’s Charter Equality before the Supreme Court of Canada: Where Do We Stand as of International Women’s Day 2022?

Posted on March 8, 2022 by Jonnette Watson Hamilton

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton & Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Women’s Charter Equality before the Supreme Court of Canada: Where Do We Stand as of International Women’s Day 2022?

Matter Commented On: International Women’s Day 2022

March 8 is International Women’s Day (IWD), a day on which we assess the progress towards achieving women’s rights. The theme this year is “Break the Bias.” We are encouraged to “Imagine a gender equal world. A world free of bias, stereotypes, and discrimination. A world that is diverse, equitable, and inclusive. A world where difference is valued and celebrated.” When considering women’s rights under Canadian law, we tend to use the lenses of discrimination and equality as the umbrella words rather than bias. Bias is certainly one form of discrimination, but discrimination also includes the harms of stereotyping, prejudice, and disadvantage. The right to equality and to be free from discrimination based on protected grounds is guaranteed under s 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada’s constitutional equality guarantee. Continue reading →

Posted in Constitutional, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion | Comments Off on Women’s Charter Equality before the Supreme Court of Canada: Where Do We Stand as of International Women’s Day 2022?

The Regulation of District Energy Systems in Alberta: Part 3

Posted on March 7, 2022 by Nigel Bankes

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Regulation of District Energy Systems in Alberta: Part 3

Decision Commented On: AUC Decision 26717-D01-2022, Calgary District Heating Inc. Exemption from Provisions of the Public Utilities Act, March 2, 2022

As the title indicates, this is my third post dealing with the regulation of district energy systems in Alberta. My first post, “Regulatory Forbearance and The Status of District Energy Systems Under the Public Utilities Act”, dealt with an application by ENMAX for relief from the entirety of Part 2 of the Public Utilities Act, RSA 2000, c P-45, (PUA) as it might apply to a proposed district energy system in Edmonton (Edmonton DE Decision). The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) denied the application. It concluded that ENMAX had not discharged its onus to show that (at para 35) “sufficient competition will exist such that regulation of ENMAX in its provision of thermal energy within the exclusive franchise area is unnecessary; or, stated in another way, that it would be in the public interest to exempt DE Edmonton and ENMAX (as its owner and operator) from Part 2 of the Public Utilities Act.” Rather, the evidence that customers who agreed to take service from the district energy facility and removed their existing boilers would effectively be captive to the service provided by ENMAX. While there was some discussion of whether more limited exemptions would protect these customers, it became clear that ENMAX’s application was in the nature of an “all-or-nothing application.” Accordingly, the AUC found it unnecessary to opine on the acceptability of a more limited set of exceptions. Continue reading →

Posted in Energy, Utility Regulation | Comments Off on The Regulation of District Energy Systems in Alberta: Part 3

The Chilling Effect of Costs on Appeals from Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Orders

Posted on March 3, 2022 by Jonnette Watson Hamilton

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: The Chilling Effect of Costs on Appeals from Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Orders

Case Commented On: Chisholm v Boardwalk General Partnership, 2021 ABQB 991 (CanLII)

This brief decision by Justice John T Henderson concerns the costs of appealing a decision of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. Following an April 2021 hearing, the RTDRS’ Tenancy Dispute Officer ordered the tenant, Ms. Chisholm, to pay her landlord, Boardwalk, the sum of $2,606.78 for arrears in rent, utilities, and parking, plus $75 in costs. The tenant appealed, but Justice Henderson dismissed her appeal in November 2021. Boardwalk then asked Justice Henderson to award them $4,556.25 in costs for that appeal. Not only did they want costs of $4,556.25 for winning an appeal from a judgment for $2,606.78, they had threatened to ask for costs of $7,087.50 (at para 5g). And they wanted these costs from a tenant whose source of income was Alberta’s Assured Income for the Severally Handicapped (AISH), i.e., a tenant who by definition has a permanent and untreatable medical condition that substantially limits their ability to earn a living (AISH Overview – Eligibility). For people living in privately-owned housing like this tenant, the maximum AISH monthly allowance has been $1,685 for the past two years (AISH Policy Manual). Her rent at Boardwalk was $1,079 per month (para 5b), leaving $606 per month for food, clothing, transportation, and all other needs. Continue reading →

Posted in Costs, Landlord/Tenant | Comments Off on The Chilling Effect of Costs on Appeals from Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Orders

Former Minister of Justice Attempted to Interfere with the Administration of Justice: Kent Report

Posted on February 28, 2022 by Shaun Fluker

By: Shaun Fluker, Nigel Bankes & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Former Minister of Justice Attempted to Interfere with the Administration of Justice: Kent Report

Matter Commented On: The Kent Report (February 15, 2022)

On February 25, the Premier issued a brief statement announcing that former Minister of Justice, Kaycee Madu, was being shifted to Minister of Labour and Immigration, and that the former Minister of Labour and Immigration, Tyler Shandro, is now the Minister of Justice. This Friday afternoon swap was in response to the findings of retired Justice Adèle Kent in her investigation into a phone call made by Minister Madu to the Edmonton Chief of Police on the morning of March 10, 2021, concerning a traffic ticket issued to him that very same morning. As we discuss at the end of this post, this investigation seemingly only occurred because CBC news reporter Elise Von Sheel revealed the making of the call in a news story published on January 17, 2022. Several hours after the CBC broke the news, Premier Kenney announced on Twitter that Minister Madu was temporarily stepping aside from his ministerial duties while an independent investigation reviewed whether the call amounted to an interference with the administration of justice. The Kent Report concludes that the call (1) was an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice and (2) created a reasonable perception of an interference with the administration of justice. In this post, we summarize and comment on the findings of the Kent Report. Continue reading →

Posted in Rule of Law | Comments Off on Former Minister of Justice Attempted to Interfere with the Administration of Justice: Kent Report