ABLawg - - Page 40

By: Kent McNeil

Matter Commented On: Ellis v The King, [2022] NZSC 114 (7 October 2022)

PDF Version: Tikanga Maori: The Application of Maori Law and Custom in Aotearoa/New Zealand

Editor’s Note: Please note that WordPress does not support the inclusion of accents on the Maori words in this post, but they appear in the official PDF version.

In October, New Zealand’s highest court released a landmark decision on the relationship between tikanga Maori (Maori law and practice) and the common law (for English translation of Maori terms, I rely on the Glossary in Carwyn Jones, New Treaty, New Tradition: Reconciling New Zealand and Maori Law (Victoria University Press, 2016) at xv-xvii). This decision has particular relevance for Canada because the place of Indigenous law in this nation is an emerging issue (Sébastien Grammond, “Recognizing Indigenous Law: A Conceptual Framework” (2022) 100:1 Can Bar Rev 1). In Reference to the Court of Appeal of Quebec in relation with the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2022 QCCA 185 (CanLII), the Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the validity (with a couple of exceptions not relevant to our discussion) of federal legislation that acknowledged inherent Indigenous jurisdiction to make laws that would be enforceable in Canadian courts (for a series of ABlawg posts on this reference, see here). As this decision is currently under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is especially pertinent to consider how the New Zealand Supreme Court has dealt with the application of tikanga Maori.

Grounding the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Proposal to Protect Vaccination Status

By Jennifer Koshan

On November 14, 2022

In Constitutional, Human Rights

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Legislation Commented On: Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5

PDF Version: Grounding the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Proposal to Protect Vaccination Status

The Alberta Human Rights Act (AHRA) has been in the news lately as a result of Premier Danielle Smith’s announcement – consistent with her platform for leadership of the United Conservative Party and its promise of no more lockdowns – that she would seek an amendment to the AHRA to add vaccination status as a ground protected from discrimination (here, here and here). In her mandate letter to Minister of Justice Tyler Shandro, released on November 10, 2022, Smith included as her second priority – second only to a Sovereignty Act – the instruction to “take any necessary legislative or regulatory steps to prohibit discrimination on the basis of COVID-19 vaccination and/or booster status.”

Playing Games with the Constitution: The Saskatchewan First Act

By Nigel Bankes

On November 9, 2022

In Constitutional

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach, and Martin Olszynski

Matter commented on: Bill 88: An Act to Assert Saskatchewan’s Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction and to Confirm the Autonomy of Saskatchewan

PDF Version: Playing Games with the Constitution: The Saskatchewan First Act

On November 1, 2022, Bronwyn Eyre, as Minister of Energy and Resources and Minister of Justice and Attorney General, introduced Bill 88, The Saskatchewan First Act, for First Reading in Saskatchewan’s Legislative Assembly. Bill 88 is comprised of a lengthy preamble and three separate parts. Part 1 is entitled “Preliminary Matters and Constitutional Assertion”. Part 2 proposes amendments to the Constitution of Saskatchewan and Part 3 establishes an Economic Impact Assessment Tribunal.

The AER Quietly Implemented a Two-Tier Mandatory Closure Spend Target

By Drew Yewchuk

On November 8, 2022

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Regulatory Change Commented On: The AER’s Inventory Reduction Program

PDF Version: The AER Quietly Implemented a Two-Tier Mandatory Closure Spend Target

Starting in mid-2021, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) adopted a new liability management framework to address the problems of inactive conventional oil and gas assets. The new liability management framework includes mandatory closure spend targets, a requirement for companies to spend a certain amount on closure work each year. The mandatory closure spend targets deal with the liabilities of inactive assets and not orphan assets (it is not to be confused with the orphan fund levy, used to fund the Orphan Well Association that abandons and remediates wells with owners that went bankrupt).

The Right to Your Day in Court

By Kaye Booth

On November 3, 2022

In Criminal, Vexatious Litigants

By: Kaye Booth

Case commented on: Heiser v Bowden Institution, 2022 ABCA 300 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Right to Your Day in Court

Courts have the responsibility to listen to the applications brought before them, especially when an individual’s liberty is at issue. On the other hand, courts have the inherent power to prevent the misuse of their procedures and to control proceedings. These two roles of the court may conflict with each other – if the court has the inherent power to label litigants as vexatious and prevent them from making further applications, how is this squared with the litigant’s right to access the court and the court’s duty to hear them?