Page 5

The Liabilities Go Up and the Security Stays the Same: The Oilsands Mine Financial Security Program in 2024

On October 4, 2024

By: Drew Yewchuk and Martin Olszynski

Documents Commented on: Mine Financial Security Program – Security and Liability (2024); Annual Mine Financial Security Program Submissions 2024 Submissions for 2023 Reporting Year

PDF Version: The Liabilities Go Up and the Security Stays the Same: The Oilsands Mine Financial Security Program in 2024

This is our annual update post in response to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) posting the annual submissions for the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). The MFSP is ostensibly Alberta’s system for obtaining financial security for the closure of oilsands and coal mines. See last year’s post here, and a lengthy discussion of the problems with the MFSP in our 2023 paper coauthored with Andrew Leach, “Not Fit for Purpose: Oil Sands Mines and Alberta’s Mine Financial Security Program”.

Modern Treaties, Shared Territories and Party Status in Aboriginal Title Litigation

By Nigel Bankes

On September 23, 2024

In Aboriginal, Indigenous, Treaty Rights

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: Malii v British Columbia, 2024 BCSC 85 (CanLII), aff’d Nisg?a’a Nation v Malii, 2024 BCCA 313 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Modern Treaties, Shared Territories and Party Status in Aboriginal Title Litigation

Overlapping claims and shared territories present challenges in the negotiation of modern treaties that are best worked out by the Indigenous Nations themselves, drawing on their own laws and protocols. But this does not always prove possible and one party or another may initiate litigation in the courts of the settler state. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon and there are now dozens of cases dealing with overlapping claims or shared territories in the context of modern treaty negotiations. One group of cases deals with the scenario in which Nation A is moving to finalize a modern treaty with the Crown, while Nation B takes the view that the territory encompassed by the proposed treaty is territory that Nation B also used more or less intensively. Nation B therefore files a competing claim and also seeks injunctive relief to prevent finalization or ratification of the proposed treaty. The courts have typically rejected applications for injunctive relief and the substantive claims may drag on for years if not decades. A case in point is the Benoanie litigation in which the applicant Nations with reserves in Northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan sought to enjoin ratification of the Nunavut Agreement: Fond du Lac Band et al v Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, 1992 CanLII 2404 (FC).

Alberta Threatens the Independence of its Legal Aid Program

By Shaun Fluker

On September 18, 2024

In Access to Justice

By: Shaun Fluker

Agreement comment on: Governance Agreement Respecting Legal Aid (September 6, 2024)

PDF Version: Alberta Threatens the Independence of its Legal Aid Program

In early September, the Alberta government announced it had signed a new five year (2024 – 2029) legal aid governance agreement with Legal Aid Alberta and the Law Society of Alberta. The government news release emphasized collaboration and a ‘shared understanding’ amongst the signatories on the importance of legal aid for access to justice. I read this narrative with suspicion because collaboration and ‘shared understanding’ are not words that I associate with the funding of public services by the UCP government. Moreover, only a couple of months have passed since the media reported that the Minister of Justice had unilaterally terminated negotiations on a new agreement in May; apparently seeking to impose a new funding structure for legal aid which critics allege would provide the Minister with significantly more control over the funding and operations of the legal aid program. This turn by the Minister from an authoritarian to a collaborative stance in just two months seems very unlikely to me, and my curiosity led to a closer look at the details in this new agreement. These details reveal that the Minister has not backed off plans to restructure legal aid, and the independence of legal aid in Alberta is under attack.

New “Public Document” on the Agreement in Principle to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty

By Nigel Bankes

On September 13, 2024

In Utility Regulation, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Document commented on: “Negotiations to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty, Agreement-in-Principle Content, Public Document”, dated August 30, 2024, release announced September 5, 2024.

PDF Version: New “Public Document” on the Agreement in Principle to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty

In the first part of July, the governments of Canada and the United States announced that they had reached an agreement in principle (AiP) on the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty (CRT). At about the same time, the province of British Columbia released a backgrounder summarizing the AiP. I provided an ABlawg commentary on that backgrounder here and I have previously posted on modernization of the CRT here and here.

Supreme Court of Canada Rules that Securities Commissions’ Administrative Penalties Do Not Survive Bankruptcy Discharge

By Jassmine Girgis

On September 9, 2024

In Administrative Law, Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: Poonian v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2024 SCC 28 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Rules that Securities Commissions’ Administrative Penalties Do Not Survive Bankruptcy Discharge

With the release of Poonian v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2024 SCC 28 (CanLII), the Supreme Court of Canada has settled the question about the status of provincial securities commissions’ unpaid administrative penalties and discharge orders upon a bankrupt’s discharge. The Court determined that administrative penalties do not fall under the statutory exceptions in sections 178(1)(a) or (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA) meaning these penalties are discharged upon a bankrupt’s discharge. Disgorgement orders, however, are captured by the s 178(1)(e) exception, and will not be discharged.