Page 4

Agreement comment on: Governance Agreement Respecting Legal Aid (September 6, 2024)

PDF Version: Alberta Threatens the Independence of its Legal Aid Program

In early September, the Alberta government announced it had signed a new five year (2024 – 2029) legal aid governance agreement with Legal Aid Alberta and the Law Society of Alberta. The government news release emphasized collaboration and a ‘shared understanding’ amongst the signatories on the importance of legal aid for access to justice. I read this narrative with suspicion because collaboration and ‘shared understanding’ are not words that I associate with the funding of public services by the UCP government. Moreover, only a couple of months have passed since the media reported that the Minister of Justice had unilaterally terminated negotiations on a new agreement in May; apparently seeking to impose a new funding structure for legal aid which critics allege would provide the Minister with significantly more control over the funding and operations of the legal aid program. This turn by the Minister from an authoritarian to a collaborative stance in just two months seems very unlikely to me, and my curiosity led to a closer look at the details in this new agreement. These details reveal that the Minister has not backed off plans to restructure legal aid, and the independence of legal aid in Alberta is under attack.

New “Public Document” on the Agreement in Principle to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty

By Nigel Bankes

On September 13, 2024

In Utility Regulation, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Document commented on: “Negotiations to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty, Agreement-in-Principle Content, Public Document”, dated August 30, 2024, release announced September 5, 2024.

PDF Version: New “Public Document” on the Agreement in Principle to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty

In the first part of July, the governments of Canada and the United States announced that they had reached an agreement in principle (AiP) on the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty (CRT). At about the same time, the province of British Columbia released a backgrounder summarizing the AiP. I provided an ABlawg commentary on that backgrounder here and I have previously posted on modernization of the CRT here and here.

Supreme Court of Canada Rules that Securities Commissions’ Administrative Penalties Do Not Survive Bankruptcy Discharge

By Jassmine Girgis

On September 9, 2024

In Administrative Law, Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: Poonian v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2024 SCC 28 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Rules that Securities Commissions’ Administrative Penalties Do Not Survive Bankruptcy Discharge

With the release of Poonian v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2024 SCC 28 (CanLII), the Supreme Court of Canada has settled the question about the status of provincial securities commissions’ unpaid administrative penalties and discharge orders upon a bankrupt’s discharge. The Court determined that administrative penalties do not fall under the statutory exceptions in sections 178(1)(a) or (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA) meaning these penalties are discharged upon a bankrupt’s discharge. Disgorgement orders, however, are captured by the s 178(1)(e) exception, and will not be discharged.

How Qualex Restricted the Scope of Redwater

By Jassmine Girgis

On September 6, 2024

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2024 ABCA 115

PDF Version: How Qualex Restricted the Scope of Redwater

In Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2024 ABCA 115 (CanLII) (Qualex CA), the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a strong decision overturning the lower court and establishing two important points: first, the test from Newfoundland and Labrador v AbitibiBowater Inc, 2012 SCC 67 (CanLII) (the Abitibi test), which the Supreme Court of Canada applied in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (Redwater), does not apply outside of insolvency proceedings, and second, only a regulator can enforce public duties.

Administrative Penalties at the Alberta Energy Regulator: Regulatory Penalties for the Kearl Oilsands Leak

By Drew Yewchuk

On September 4, 2024

In Administrative Law, Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decisions Commented On: AER Notice of Administrative Penalty 202408-009, AER Administrative Sanction 202408-010, and AER News Release 2024-08-22

PDF Version: Administrative Penalties at the Alberta Energy Regulator: Regulatory Penalties for the Kearl Oilsands Leak

On August 22, 2024, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) issued notice of administrative penalty 202408-009 (penalty decision) and administrative sanction 202408-010 (administrative sanction) (together, the ‘enforcement decisions’) imposing terms and conditions to Imperial Oil Resources Limited (Imperial Oil). The AER also issued a news release about these two enforcement actions. This post assesses the AER’s enforcement decisions and the justifications provided for them.