By: Admin
PDF Version: ABlawg: Year in Review 2021
ABlawg is pleased to provide this compilation of highlights from 2021, consisting of some statistics and synthesis of our bloggers’ contributions in substantive areas of law.
By: Mark Mancini and Martin Olszynski
PDF Version: Reviewing Regulations Post-Vavilov: Ecology Action Centre v Canada (Part II)
Case Commented On: Ecology Action Centre v Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2021 FC 1367 (CanLII)
This is the second post on the Federal Court’s recent decision in Ecology Action Centre v Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2021 FC 1367 (CanLII). For the background on this decision, see Martin Olszynski’s first post here.
By: Martin Olszynski
Case Commented On: Ecology Action Centre v Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2021 FC 1367 (CanLII)
The applicants sought judicial review in Federal Court of the “Regional Assessment of Offshore Oil and Gas Exploratory Drilling East of Newfoundland and Labrador” (the Offshore Exploratory Regional Assessment), initiated as a “regional study” under the previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19, s 52 (CEAA, 2012) but converted into a “regional assessment” under the current Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 (IAA) when the latter came into force in 2019. The Offshore Exploratory Regional Assessment and Report were prepared by a committee established by both the federal and provincial governments and submitted to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada (the Minister). The applicants also sought judicial review of the subsequently promulgated Regulations Respecting Excluded Physical Activities (Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Exploratory Wells) (the Offshore Exploratory Regulations) pursuant to paragraph 112(1)(a.2) of the IAA, the effect of which was to exclude offshore exploratory drilling from undergoing individual impact assessments on a go-forward basis. Both applications were dismissed.
By: Deanne Sowter and Jennifer Koshan
PDF Version: Judging Family Violence: Recommendations for Judicial Practices and Guidelines in Family Violence Cases
There have been some recent legal developments that compel us to consider the role and responsibilities of judges in cases involving family violence. First, amendments to the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), came into effect in March 2021 and the Act now stipulates that family violence is a factor relevant to the best interests of the child. Family violence is finally recognized federally as germane to judicial decisions on parenting, though it is not explicitly recognized as relevant to whether negotiated settlements are an appropriate expectation, which has important implications for the judge’s role in this area. Second, there has been heightened attention to judicial education in the context of gender-based violence, most directly through Bill C-3 (Second Session, Forty-third Parliament). This Bill received Royal Assent in May 2021 and revised the Judges Act, RSC 1985, c J-1, such that in order to be eligible for appointment to superior courts, prospective judges undertake to participate in continuing education on sexual assault law and social context (s 3(b)). While limited to sexual violence, these amendments raise issues about judicial education that are relevant in the family violence context as well. Third, the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) released its newly revised Ethical Principles for Judges (EPJ) in June 2021. The EPJ do not explicitly reference family violence, which is a concern, but there are also opportunities to interpret the EPJ to ensure that family violence considerations are front of mind for judges hearing cases or conducting judicial mediation. In this post, we consider these developments and make recommendations for judicial practices and guidelines that better reflect the gravity and context of family violence.
By: Jassmine Girgis
PDF Version: Interpreting the Generalized Duty of Good Faith in Insolvency Proceedings
Case Commented On: CWB Maxium Financial Inc v 2026998 Alberta Ltd, 2021 ABQB 137 (CanLII)
In CWB Maxium Financial Inc v 2026998 Alberta Ltd, 2021 ABQB 137 (CanLII), the court considered the duty of good faith in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3, s 4.2 [BIA], and the Personal Property Security Act, RSA 2000, c P-7, s 66(1) [PPSA], in relation to the plaintiff lenders seeking a final order of receivership against the defendant debtors. This post will focus on the duty in the context of insolvency. It will also comment on and contrast the equitable duty of fairness under the corporate oppression remedy.