Page 44

The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 3: The Second Application for Summary Dismissal Should Never Have Been Heard

Case Commented On: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2022 ABCA 111

This is part 3 of a series on the litigation resulting from the Bankruptcy of Sequoia Resources Corp. (Sequoia). Part 1 covered the first application to strike and the first application to intervene. Part 2 covered a costs decision against the Trustee and the first appeal decision.

This third part covers some of the interlocutory decisions, the Court of Appeal’s decision on the second summary dismissal decision, and explains how the initial asset transfer seems to have passed regulatory review.

How is the Orphan Fund Levy Set? Alberta’s Oil and Gas Clean-up Costs in 2022

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 17, 2022

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk & Chris Wray

PDF Version: How is the Orphan Fund Levy Set? Alberta’s Oil and Gas Clean-up Costs in 2022

Decision Commented On: The Upcoming Orphan Fund Levy for 2022/2023

ABlawg has covered the orphan and inactive oil and gas well issue for around five years now and those who have not followed the issue can become lost in the complexities of the regulatory system. This post is an entry point for those first starting to look carefully at the issue. It describes Alberta’s oil and gas clean-up obligation and costs problems in detail, explains why it is difficult to get clear information about the precise size of the problem, and ends by describing what is at stake in the upcoming policy decision: the annual decision of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to set the amount of the 2022/2023 Orphan Fund Levy.

If Not Now, When?

By Lisa Silver

On March 16, 2022

In Criminal, Sentencing

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: If Not Now, When?

Case Commented On: R v Natomagan, 2022 ABCA 48 (CanLII)

The opening paragraphs of the recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision in R v Natomagan, 2022 ABCA 48 (CanLII), belie the significance of the decision. It commences like many other appellate sentencing decisions, setting out the lower Court’s ruling by focusing on a narrow ground of appeal. In this case, that ground encompasses the Crown appeal against the imposition of a determinate rather than an indeterminate sentence for a designated dangerous offender. By paragraph 3, the Court has shown its hand and finds the sentencing judge “applied the wrong legal standard.” By paragraph 5, the Court allows the appeal and imposes an indeterminate sentence. So far, as expected. But it is in the next paragraph where the decision steps out of the ordinary and becomes a case to read closely, thoroughly, and with interest. There, the Court raises concerns with the “unfettered reliance” on the use of “actuarial risk assessment tools” in determining custodial options for Indigenous offenders within the criminal justice system (at para 6). The Court directly connects these biased risk assessment tools to the overrepresentation of Indigenous offenders in the carceral system (at paras 7 to 13). Finally, the Court provides a well-placed caution requiring judges to make informed decisions in using these tools (at para 141). Despite this warning and well-placed concern, the Court, as foreshadowed by the opening paragraphs, reverts to the usual by finding the offender, Ashton Natomagan, to be an “intractable risk to the public” (at para 137). This means the biased and discriminatory risk assessment tools did not impact the ultimate finding that he was a danger, requiring an indeterminate sentence (at paras 137 to 138). This disconnect between law and reality is a continuing theme in the criminal justice experience of Indigenous offenders. Although this decision is a positive step in recognizing wrongs and attempting to ameliorate injustices, more must be done now to change the future outcomes for Indigenous offenders like Ashton.

Coal Law and Policy Part Eight: The Results of the Coal Consultation and the Return to the Alberta Land Stewardship Act

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 15, 2022

In Energy, Environmental

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Coal Law and Policy Part Eight: The Results of the Coal Consultation and the Return to the Alberta Land Stewardship Act

Reports and Ministerial Order Commented On: Engaging Albertans About Coal, Final Report: Recommendations for the Management of Coal Resources in Alberta, Ministerial Order 002/2022

On March 4, 2022, the Alberta government released the two reports of the Coal Policy Consultation Committee (the Committee), as well as a ministerial order from the Minister of Energy implementing part of the Committee’s recommendations. This post continues ABlawg’s coverage of coal law and policy issues. ABlawg’s last post on this topic, “Coal Development Consultation Terms of Reference Revisited”, contains links to our previous posts.

This post summarizes key points of the Committee’s reports and reviews the actions government has taken so far in response to the reports.

The Sad State of Regional Land Use Planning in Alberta

By Nigel Bankes

On March 10, 2022

In Land Use

By: Nigel Bankes, Sharon Mascher & Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: The Sad State of Regional Land Use Planning in Alberta

Matters Commented On: (1) Coal Policy Committee, Final Report: Recommendations for the Management of Coal Resources in Alberta, December 2021, released to the public March 4, 2022, (2) Minister Sonya Savage, Press Release, Getting it Right on Coal in Alberta, March 4, 2022, (3) Lower Athabasca Regional Plan, and (4) South Saskatchewan Regional Plan

The release of the Coal Policy Committee Recommendations on March 4, 2022, offers three reminders as to the sad state of regional land use planning in Alberta. The first reminder is that 14 years after the adoption of the much-heralded Land Use Framework in 2008, and 13 years after the adoption of the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c A-26.8 (ALSA), we still have only two approved plans in Alberta, the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) (approved August 22, 2012, and brought into force September 1, 2012) and the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP) (adopted in 2014). This was significant to the Coal Policy Committee because it meant that while plans adopted under ALSA might ultimately supersede the “nascent form of land-use planning” (at 22) embodied in the “coal categories” of the 1976 Coal Policy, we are still awaiting plans for the balance of the eastern slopes of the Rockies north of the SSRP, namely for the North Saskatchewan, the Upper Athabasca and the Upper Peace regions (see Figure 1, below).