ABLawg

Cases Considered: National Energy Board, Reasons for Decision, TransCanada PipeLines Limited, GH-5-2008, Jurisdiction and Facilities, February 2008 (posted to the NEB website February 26, 2009)

PDF Version: TransCanada’s Alberta Pipeline System now under federal regulatory authority

It’s official. The intra-provincial natural gas transmission system (the Alberta System), originally built by Alberta Gas Trunk Line Limited, latterly known as NOVA, and part of the TransCanada PipeLines (TCPL) empire since 1998, will henceforward be regulated by the National Energy Board rather than the provincial regulators, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) (for pipeline construction etc) and the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) (for tolls and tariffs etc).

Privacy in Schools: Dogs, Lockers, Bodies and Backpacks

By Linda McKay-Panos

On March 19, 2009

In Constitutional, Criminal, Privacy

Cases Considered: R. v. Kang-Brown, 2008 SCC 18,
R. v. A.M., 2008 SCC 19.

PDF Version: Privacy in Schools: Dogs, Lockers, Bodies and Backpacks

I would like to believe that teenagers are protected from all of the evils of the world when they are at school. At the same time, teenagers are growing into adults and do have rights, such as a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter“) s. 8 provides that:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The Women’s Court of Canada comes to Alberta

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 18, 2009

In Constitutional

As reported on Slaw, the Women’s Court of Canada embarked on a western Canadian tour last week, including stops in Edmonton on March 12 and Calgary on March 13. According to Michael Lines’ post on Slaw, “As a rock group they are pretty unplugged, but as an educational experience, they … rock!”So who is the Women’s Court of Canada (WCC)? Taking our inspiration from Oscar Wilde, who said “the only duty we owe to history is to rewrite it”, we are a group of academics, litigators and activists who are re-writing equality rights law. The first six judgments of the WCC (in Symes v. Canada, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; Native Women’s Association of Canada v. Canada, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 627; Eaton v. Brant County Board of Education, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; Law v. Canada, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; Gosselin v. Quebec, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429; and Newfoundland v. NAPE, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 381) are published in volume 18(1) of the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law and are available electronically on Hein On-Line. Three of the judgments are available on The Court as well. The WCC has plans for a website, including a blog, and students who attended last year’s launch of the WCC in Toronto have created a Facebook group.

Evidence of Amelioration: What Does Kapp Require of Governments Under s.15(2) of the Charter? What Will Courts Permit?

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 8, 2009

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Evidence of Amelioration: What Does Kapp Require of Governments Under s.15(2) of the Charter? What Will Courts Permit?

Case Commented On: Cunningham v Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2009 ABCA 53

Jonnette Watson Hamilton and I recently commented on the implications of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 for the proper approach to equality rights under s.15(1) of the Charter (see The End of Law: A New Framework for Analyzing Section 15(1) Charter Challenges). We also noted that Kapp was more clear in terms of the approach to be taken under s.15(2) of the Charter, giving that section “independent status to protect ameliorative laws, programs and activities.” A recent Alberta case deals with a potential new battleground under s.15(2): government attempts to introduce new evidence to establish the ameliorative purpose of their laws on appeal. If a government is successful in this respect, and the court accepts the ameliorative purpose of the law or program in question, this will effectively serve to bar a claim under s.15(1).

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (and other, more mixed, metaphors): and a prediction as to the role of power and influence on law-making in the province.

By Nigel Bankes

On February 25, 2009

In Administrative Law, Natural Resources

Cases Considered: ATCO Midstream Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2009 ABCA 41.

PDF Version: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (and other, more mixed, metaphors): and a prediction as to the role of power and influence on law-making in the province.

The cases are legion in which the Energy Resources Conservation Board, supported by the Court of Appeal, has denied standing to public interest interveners, First Nations (e.g. Dene Tha’ First Nation v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2005 ABCA 68) and fellow-travellers on the grounds that they lack an adequate legal interest in the subject matter of the application. What is interesting about this case is that, this time, the ox that is gored is a sacred cow. Two sacred cows in fact; a leading provincial utility and gas processor (ATCO), and a petrochemical interest (NOVA) that the province spawned. At a formal level the result might be celebrated in terms of respect for the neutrality of the law and equality before the law. Respect may be tempered if we think the rule to be a bad rule.