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

The Legal Status of UNDRIP in British Columbia: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented on: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2023 BCSC 1680 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Legal Status of UNDRIP in British Columbia: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

This is the first of what we anticipate will be a series of posts on this important decision which 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]. Other posts will address the substance of the duty to consult and accommodate argument in the context of free entry regimes, as well as the sacred site issues discussed in the decision.

Supreme Court of Canada Will Soon Rule on the Constitutionality of the Federal Impact Assessment Act. Here’s What to Watch for…

By: David V. Wright

Matter Commented On: Forthcoming Supreme Court of Canada reference case in the Matter of An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, SC 2019, c 28 and the Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019-285; and the Matter of a Reference by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to the Court of Appeal of Alberta under the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, s 26

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Will Soon Rule on the Constitutionality of the Federal Impact Assessment Act. Here’s What to Watch for…

For anyone interested in impact assessment in Canada, this is a suspenseful time. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is expected to soon release its ruling on the constitutionality of the federal Impact Assessment ActSC 2019, c 28 [IAA] and the associated Physical Activities Regulations, SOR/2019-285 (the latter setting out the list of projects that trigger application of the regime). My Environmental Impact Assessment Law seminar students and I are set to dive deeply into the decision as soon as it drops, and no doubt many others plan to do similar. For now, this short post sets out ten things to watch for. (For those interested in deeper dives into this statutory regime and how we got here, see my previous publications here, here and here).

Now 40% Worse: The Mine Financial Security Program in 2023

By: Drew Yewchuk and Martin Olszynski

Documents Commented on: Mine Financial Security Program – Security and Liability (2023); Annual Mine Financial Security Program Submissions 2023 Submissions for 2022 Reporting Year

PDF Version: Now 40% Worse: The Mine Financial Security Program in 2023

This brief post is in response to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) publishing the annual submissions required under the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). We provide an update on the state of Alberta’s system for obtaining financial security for the closure of oilsands and coal mines. Drew last provided an update in 2021, and that post describes the problems with the MFSP. He skipped 2022 because there was not much to say: it was bad news, but the same bad news as 2021. The numbers this year contain some notable surprises.

The Crown Pore Space Lease and Pore Space Unit Agreement

By: Nigel Bankes

Documents commented on: The Crown Pore Space Lease and Pore Space Unit Agreement

PDF Version: The Crown Pore Space Lease and Pore Space Unit Agreement

As I discussed in my last ABlawg post the Government of Alberta (GoA) recently announced the adoption of the Small-Scale and Remote (SSR) Carbon Sequestration Tenure. As part of this announcement, the GoA also released a standard form pore space lease (PSL) and a model Pore Space Unit Agreement (PSUA). This is my attempt to unpack these two agreements and to offer what I hope will be understood as constructive comments on these documents.

Public Participation under the Water Act (Alberta): A Very Short Window of Opportunity

By: Shaun Fluker

Legislation commented on: Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3

PDF Version: Public Participation under the Water Act (Alberta): A Very Short Window of Opportunity

The Faculty’s Public Interest Law Clinic regularly gets inquiries from the public seeking guidance on how to participate in decision-making under the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3. As well, the Clinic maintains an active list of projects on the subject of public participation in environmental decision-making. Common matters of concern that we hear about include draining wetlands, as well as impacts to groundwater. As water scarcity in southern Alberta becomes an acute problem, I expect to see a growth in public concern with development projects that affect surface and ground water. This very short comment is simply a reminder that if someone wants to provide feedback or comments on an application made under the Water Act, for example an application made by a company that plans to drain a wetland so that the area can be developed, they normally have only 7 days from the date of the application to submit a ‘statement of concern’ to Alberta Environment and Protected Areas.

Page 48 of 441

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén