ABLawg

Case Commented On: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Gitxaala and the Conundrum of UNDRIP Implementing Legislation: The Sky Has Not Fallen In

This case, which commenced as a judicial review application, involved a challenge to the implementation and/or constitutional validity of British Columbia’s hard rock mineral regime under the terms of the Mineral Tenure Act, RSBC 1996, c 292 (MTA). The petitioners also claimed that the MTA regime was not consistent with the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP or UN Declaration) as required by section 3 of British Columbia’s “implementing” legislation, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, SBC 2019, c 44 (DRIPA). This post focuses on that aspect of the case which was the only live matter by the time the case got to the Court of Appeal. A majority of that Court found in favour of the petitioners while the dissent concluded that the matter was not justiciable.

The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Reaches Canada: The Federal Court Opens Door to New Climate Claims

By Kaitlin Schaaf

On December 15, 2025

In Climate Change, International Law

By: Kaitlin Schaaf

Case Commented On: Lho’Imggin v Canada, 2025 FC 1586 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Reaches Canada: The Federal Court Opens Door to New Climate Claims

In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released an Advisory Opinion (AO) on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, [2025] ICJ Rep 456. As Professor Majekolagbe pointed out in their analysis, the AO affirmed that international climate change treaties create binding obligations on states and under customary international law, states have a duty to prevent significant harm to the climate system.

Alberta Water Act Amendments: No Bridge Over Troubled Waters

By Arlene Kwasniak

On December 11, 2025

In Water Law

By: Arlene Kwasniak, David C Barrett, Kerry Black

Matter Commented On: Amendments to the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3 as set out in Bill 7: Water Amendment Act, 2025 (Bill 7)

PDF Version: Alberta Water Act Amendments: No Bridge Over Troubled Waters

On October 30^th, the governing United Conservative Party of Alberta introduced Bill 7, the Water Amendment Act, 2025. Bill 7 passed third reading at the Legislative Assembly on December 2, 2025, and will come into force on proclamation. No amendments were made. This post assesses the Bill’s potential impacts on water management in Alberta. Part I of this post provides an overview of water law in Alberta, up to the amendments. Part II sets out the amendments Bill 7 presents and describes them in relation to traditional water management as prescribed by law in the province for over 130 years. Part II primarily takes a legal perspective. Part III then offers analyses of the amendments from an ecological, social, infrastructure, and related impacts and concerns perspective.

A Court Divided: What an Ontario Court Motion Reveals About Race in the Courtroom

By Gideon Christian

On December 8, 2025

In Equality, Human Rights

By: Gideon Christian

Cases Commented On: Dosu v Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 6496 (CanLII); Dosu v Human Rights of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 6509 (CanLII)

PDF Version: A Court Divided: What an Ontario Court Motion Reveals About Race in the Courtroom

In a bizarre procedural twist, the Ontario Divisional Court issued two contradictory decisions on consecutive days in the same case. Two written motions for leave to intervene in Dosu v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario was sent to two different judges – Justice Sharon Shore and Justice Shaun Nakatsuru – who rendered opposite rulings. Justice Shore dismissed the would-be intervenors; the next day, in a separate ruling, Justice Nakatsuru granted them intervention, setting the stage for what appears to be an embarrassing judicial outcome for the court.

The Automatic Right of Appeal under Section 193(c) of the BIA: The Case for a Narrow Approach in Asset Sale Decisions

By Jassmine Girgis

On December 3, 2025

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: Cameron Stephens Mortgage Capital Ltd v Conacher Kingston Holdings Inc, 2025 ONCA 732 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Automatic Right of Appeal under Section 193(c) of the BIA: The Case for a Narrow Approach in Asset Sale Decisions

Section 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA) sets out four circumstances in which a party has an automatic right of appeal to a provincial appellate court from any order or decision of a judge. Where none of these enumerated grounds are engaged, a party can seek leave to appeal under section 193(e).

This post is about appeals dealing with the disposition of the debtor’s assets by trustees or receivers.

Gitxaala and the Conundrum of UNDRIP Implementing Legislation: The Sky Has Not Fallen In

The ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on Climate Reaches Canada: The Federal Court Opens Door to New Climate Claims

Alberta Water Act Amendments: No Bridge Over Troubled Waters

A Court Divided: What an Ontario Court Motion Reveals About Race in the Courtroom

The Automatic Right of Appeal under Section 193(c) of the BIA: The Case for a Narrow Approach in Asset Sale Decisions