University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Grading the 2024 AER Liability Management Performance Report

By: Drew Yewchuk and Shaun Fluker

Report Commented On: 2024 AER Liability Management Performance Report

PDF Version: Grading the 2024 AER Liability Management Performance Report

In November 2025, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) published the 2024 Liability Management Performance Report (2024 Report). This is the third AER Liability Management Performance Report to the public on progress to reduce Alberta’s massive unfunded closure liability in the conventional (non-oil sands mine) oil and gas sector. We discussed the 2022 report here and the 2023 report here. In a positive change from earlier years, the AER has kept the 2022 and 2023 reports up on their website. While this allows the public to compare information in the current report with past years, it is noteworthy that the AER itself does not use the previous years to evaluate performance and the 2024 Report provides almost no discussion or analysis of the data set out in the report. This is one of the reasons why the 2024 Report receives an F grade.

What Are the Implications of the International Court’s Climate Change Advisory Opinion for Provinces?

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Obligations of States In Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, July 23, 2025

PDF Version: What Are the Implications of the International Court’s Climate Change Advisory Opinion for Provinces?

ABlawg has already published posts on constitutional climate change litigation in Canada (the La Rose case, here) as well as two posts on the important unanimous Advisory Opinion (AO) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Climate Change, here and here. This post assesses the implications of the AO for a province within the Confederation of Canada, specifically a province like Alberta which is a significant producer of carbon fuels and a significant emitter of greenhouse gases: see ECCC, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2025).

“Money for Nothing”: Landlords Take on Residential Tenants’ Security Deposits  

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Legislation Commented On: Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1, Part 4

PDF Version: “Money for Nothing”: Landlords Take on Residential Tenants’ Security Deposits  

Landlords must place their residential tenants’ security deposits in an interest-bearing trust account. When interest rates are low, landlords take for themselves all of the interest earned in these accounts. When interest rates are higher, landlords take at least the first three percent of the interest earned on their tenants’ money, delivering the rest to their tenants. In addition to benefiting from this “spread,” landlords’ duty to pay interest on security deposits to their tenants ends when tenants vacate the rental premises, but landlords can keep the security deposits for at least ten, if not thirty days. If landlords wrongfully withhold security deposits, they can keep both security deposits and the interest earned for weeks, months or even years of negotiation, law suits, judgment filings and service, and collections. This might seem like small change if your idea of a landlord is a couple renting out a basement suite in their home. However, landlords in Alberta these days tend to be Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS) and some of these REITS have thousands of residential tenants. If a REIT has 20,000 rental units in Alberta with an average of one $2,000 security deposit per unit, a REIT would have $40,000,000 of their tenant’s money earning the REIT at least 3% interest annually. That would be $1,200,000 per year. Money for nothing and all legal. The three percent spread and the interest-free holding after tenants vacate are enabled by Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA) and its regulations. The refusal of the Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) to require landlords to pay interest on wrongfully withheld security deposits, or to otherwise compensate tenants, is not required, but it seems to be their policy.

Religious Freedom and the Oath to the Sovereign, Revisited

By: Howard Kislowicz

Case Commented On: Wirring v Law Society of Alberta, 2025 ABCA 413

PDF Version: Religious Freedom and the Oath to the Sovereign, Revisited

On December 16, 2025, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the Court of King’s Bench which had held that the Oath of Allegiance required of candidates for enrolment in the Alberta Law Society did not infringe the religious freedom of the claimant, Mr. Wirring. At the relevant time, the text of the Oath was as follows:

I ________swear I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law (quoted in Wirring v Law Society of Alberta at para 2).

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal Weighs in on Aboriginal Title and Private Lands

By: Robert Hamilton

Cases Commented On: JD Irving, Limited et al v Wolastoqey Nation, 2025 NBCA 129 CanLII; Wolastoqey Nations v New Brunswick and Canada, et al., 2024 NBKB 203 CanLII.

PDF Version: The New Brunswick Court of Appeal Weighs in on Aboriginal Title and Private Lands

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal just delivered an important decision on the relationship between Aboriginal title and private property, concluding that declarations of Aboriginal title are not available where lands have been granted to private landowners. The practical and doctrinal implications are significant and could have impacts across the country. The Wolastoqey have indicated they intended to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Page 4 of 436

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén