Page 5

Legislation commented on: Wildlife (Grizzly Bear – Ministerial) Amendment Regulation, Alta Reg 115/2024

PDF Version: Legal Hunting of an Endangered Species: A Grizzly Tale in Alberta

On July 9 the Alberta government issued a news release announcing that the Minister of Forestry and Parks has reinstated a grizzly bear hunt in Alberta. In this post, I describe the legislative amendment made to enable the hunt and explain how effective endangered species legislation (non-existent in Alberta) would make it much more difficult for the Minister to do this. Alberta’s endangered species law and policy has always been a sad joke in terms of facilitating protection or recovery of species, but the UCP government has now managed to make this a sad and twisted joke. Alberta has joined a select group of countries in the world that authorize hunting of a majestic fauna species that they also designate as threatened with extinction (membership in this group includes many African nations who cater to trophy hunters – see Elephants, lions and leopards: 13 countries where rich people hunt endangered animals.

Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Litigation, Part 2, August 2024

By Nigel Bankes

On August 28, 2024

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Litigation, Part 2, August 2024

Cases and decisions commented on: (1) AER Panel Decision on Stay Motion Filed by the Municipal District of Ranchland No. 66 (Stay Application) August 9, 2024, and (2) Municipal District of Ranchland No. 66 v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 274 (CanLII) (PTA Application) August 22, 2024

This ABlawg post is an update to a post from earlier this year: “Taking Stock of The Grassy Mountain Litigation as of February 2024”. In that post, I traced the litigation commenced by Benga and its corporate successor Northback following the June 2021 report and decision of the Joint Review Panel to reject the Grassy Mountain Project exercising authority as the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). That litigation involved cases in the Federal Court and Alberta’s Court of Appeal and Court of King’s Bench. The Alberta Court of Appeal litigation came to an end in 2022 when the Supreme Court of Canada denied a further leave to appeal. The Federal Court cases are still ongoing, as is the King’s Bench matter, as well as allied litigation brought by First Nations in both Federal Court and in King’s Bench. I refer the reader to my February 2024 post for details on these case as well as the necessary links and references.

The Alberta Energy Regulator’s Planned Timelines for Orphan, Inactive, and Decommissioned Oil and Gas Infrastructure

By Drew Yewchuk

On August 16, 2024

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Regulatory Memo Commented On: Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2023/2024 and AER Bulletin 2024-19, Industry-Wide Closure Spend Requirement for 2025

PDF Version: The Alberta Energy Regulator’s Planned Timelines for Orphan, Inactive, and Decommissioned Oil and Gas Infrastructure

In the past few weeks, the Orphan Well Association (OWA) released their 2023/2024 annual report and the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) announced the 2025 closure spend requirement. This post assesses the OWA’s plan for the closure of the orphan inventory and the AER’s plan for closure of inactive and decommissioned infrastructure. When does the AER plan for the OWA to complete the closure of the orphan inventory and when does the AER plan for industry to finish decommissioning and reclaiming (or posting security for) Alberta’s inactive and decommissioned oil and gas infrastructure? Target closure dates can be determined by extrapolating from the current orphan fund levy and the closure spend requirement and the estimated total costs of closure.

Restoule: Tugging on the Rope and the Duty of Diligent Implementation of Treaty Promises

By Nigel Bankes

On August 8, 2024

In Aboriginal, Indigenous, Reconciliation, Treaty Rights

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Ontario (Attorney General) v Restoule, 2024 SCC 27 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Restoule: Tugging on the Rope and the Duty of Diligent Implementation of Treaty Promises

[T]he trial judge found that the Robinson Treaties were motivated largely by the principles of kinship and mutual interdependence, as reflected in the Covenant Chain. This enduring alliance has been depicted using the metaphor of a ship tied to a tree with a metal chain: “The metaphor associated with the chain was that if one party was in need, they only had to ‘tug on the rope’ to give the signal that something was amiss, and ‘all would be restored’” … The Anishinaabe treaty partners have been tugging on the rope for some 150 years now, but the Crown has ignored their calls. The Crown has severely undermined both the spirit and substance of the Robinson Treaties.

Per Justice Jamal at para 286

In a unanimous judgment authored by Justice Jamal, Ontario (Attorney General) v Restoule, 2024 SCC 27 (CanLII), the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that the Crown has a duty of diligent implementation of treaty promises that is informed not by fiduciary principles, but by the honour of the Crown. And in this case, the Crown was clearly in breach of that duty since, as Justice Jamal noted in words that will ring down through the decades: “For well over a century, the Crown has shown itself to be a patently unreliable and untrustworthy treaty partner in relation to the augmentation promise. It has lost the moral authority to simply say ‘trust us’” (at para 262).

In Support of a New Alberta Act for Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets

By Stella Varvis

On August 7, 2024

In Wills and Estates

By: Stella Varvis

Report Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Access to Digital Assets by Fiduciaries, Final Report 121, March 2024

PDF Version: In Support of a New Alberta Act for Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets

More and more Canadians are engaged in online activities like sending and receiving emails and texts, storing photos and videos, posting on social media sites, collecting points through various loyalty programs, and trading in cryptocurrency. Given all this online activity, there’s a real question about who should be able to access these electronic records – known as digital assets – when the original account holder dies or becomes incapacitated.