ABLawg

Case Commented On: Dorsey v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 38 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Dorsey v Canada: A Rare and Necessary Advancement for Prisoners’ Rights

The decision in Dorsey v Canada, issued by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) on November 21, 2025, represents the first major jurisprudential development in the law of habeas corpus for several years. It expands the availability of habeas corpus to inmates whose applications to transfer to a lower security level have been denied. Prior to Dorsey, habeas corpus was only available in the context of institutional transfers if an inmate’s security level had been involuntarily raised. Writing for the majority in Dorsey, Justice Mary T. Moreau found that a decision denying an inmate transfer to a lower security level qualifies as a deprivation of liberty for which habeas corpus can offer a remedy.

The Mess We’re In: Insights from the 1st International Colloquium on Closure Liabilities in the Energy Sector

By Kaitlin Schaaf

On November 21, 2025

In Energy, Environmental, Oil & Gas

By: Kaitlin Schaaf, Kathy Cao, Jessica Farrell, Andrew Simmons, Emilia Yassiri, and Martin Olszynski

Matter Commented On: 1^st International Colloquium on Closure Liabilities in the Energy Sector

PDF Version: The Mess We’re In: Insights from the 1st International Colloquium on Closure Liabilities in the Energy Sector

The 1^st International Colloquium on Closure Liabilities in the Energy Sector was a recent three-day event organized by Professor Martin Olszynski, the current Chair in Energy, Resources and Sustainability, and hosted by the University of Calgary Faculty of Law with the support of the Public Interest Law Clinic (PILC) and the Canadian Institute for Resources Law (CIRL). From October 3 – October 5, 2025, the event brought together scholars and practitioners from Canada, the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom to address the challenges associated with environmental liabilities in the energy sector.

Disgorgement Orders as Non-Dischargeable Debt

By Jassmine Girgis

On November 20, 2025

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: Williams (Re), 2025 BCSC 1128 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Disgorgement Orders as Non-Dischargeable Debt

Re Williams, 2025 BCSC 1128, deals with a debtor who, prior to his bankruptcy, was found by the British Columbia Securities Commission (the Commission) to have masterminded a Ponzi scheme. The Commission imposed a penalty on Mr. Williams and ordered him to disgorge a sum of $6.8 million, an obligation from which he later sought release upon applying for a bankruptcy discharge. The issue in this case was whether the Commission’s debt fell into one of the categories of non-dischargeable debts, namely those arising from obtaining property or service by fraudulent misrepresentation or false pretences (s 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA)).

The Nuclear Option: An Update on Alberta’s Legislation Targeting Trans and Gender Diverse Youth

By Jennifer Koshan

On November 19, 2025

In Constitutional, Equality, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, Human Rights, Injunctions, Youth and the Law

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case and Bill Commented On: Egale Canada v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 394 (CanLII); Bill 9, Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, 2^nd Session, 31st Legislature

PDF Version: The Nuclear Option: An Update on Alberta’s Legislation Targeting Trans and Gender Diverse Youth

On November 18, 2025 the UCP government introduced Bill 9, which seeks to amend three statutes that were passed last year restricting the rights of trans and gender diverse youth. The Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 invokes s 33 of the Charter, such that if the Bill is passed, the three statutes will apply notwithstanding several Charter rights and freedoms, the Alberta Bill of Rights, RSA 2000, c A-14, and the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5. This is the second time s 33 has been used in recent weeks, with Bill 2, the Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B?0.5, invoking s 33 to end the teachers’ strike and impose a contract on them in late October (see an ABlawg post on Bill 2 by Shaun Fluker et al here).

The Queue-Jumping Problem with Mandamus: Northback v the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

By Drew Yewchuk

On November 18, 2025

In Access to Information, Administrative Law, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented On: Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta (Environment and Protected Areas), 2025 ABKB 617 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Queue-Jumping Problem with Mandamus:Northback v the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

In Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta (Environment and Protected Areas), 2025 ABKB 617 (CanLII), Northback Holdings Corporation (Northback), (formerly known as Benga Mining Limited) sought a mandamus order from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench that would require the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) to complete their review of the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas’ response to access requests made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SA 2000 c F-25 (FOIP). The Court of King’s Bench dismissed the application, finding that three years was not unreasonable delay in light of the OIPC’s lack of resources and workload, and that an order would have caused inequitable queue jumping.

Dorsey v Canada: A Rare and Necessary Advancement for Prisoners’ Rights

The Mess We’re In: Insights from the 1st International Colloquium on Closure Liabilities in the Energy Sector

Disgorgement Orders as Non-Dischargeable Debt

The Nuclear Option: An Update on Alberta’s Legislation Targeting Trans and Gender Diverse Youth

The Queue-Jumping Problem with Mandamus: Northback v the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas