ABLawg - - Page 59

Appellate Court Discusses Impact of Mental Health on Sentencing in Overturning Jail Term for Possession of Gun

Case Commented On: R v Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494 (CanLII)

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released R v Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494 (CanLII), which addresses the sanction for a criminal offence committed during a mental health crisis. The facts of the case and grounds of appeal relate to a suicide attempt and suicidal ideation, which are discussed throughout this post. Mr. Fabbro’s charges related to possession of a firearm that he was using in an attempt to end his life. The sentencing judge decided that Mr. Fabbro should go to jail for two years for this. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision and substituted a conditional sentence order – colloquially, ‘house arrest’ or jail in the community.

Critical Infrastructure Defence Act Charter Challenge Survives Alberta Government’s Motion to Strike

By Jennifer Koshan

On August 5, 2021

In Constitutional, Human Rights

By: Jennifer Koshan, Lisa Silver and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Critical Infrastructure Defence Act Charter Challenge Survives Alberta Government’s Motion to Strike

Case Commented On: Alberta Union of Public Employees v Her Majesty the Queen (Alberta), 2021 ABQB 371 (CanLII)

Last summer we posted a critical analysis of Alberta’s Bill 1, the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, SA 2020, c C-32.7 (CIDA). We argued that CIDA, which prohibits unlawfully entering onto, damaging, or obstructing any “essential infrastructure” in the province, violates several sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including freedom of expression (s 2(b)), freedom of peaceful assembly (s 2(c)), freedom of association (s 2(d)), the right to liberty (s 7) and the right to equality (s 15). Shortly after CIDA took effect on June 7, 2020, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) and three individual plaintiffs brought a constitutional challenge against the law, arguing that it violates those Charter rights and freedoms (with the exception of s 15, which was not raised), as well as sections 1(a), (c), and (d) of the Alberta Bill of Rights, RSA 2000, c A-14 (which protect similar rights as well as the right to enjoyment of property). The plaintiffs also contended that CIDA encroaches on federal jurisdiction under The Constitution Act, 1867, namely, s 91(27) (federal jurisdiction over criminal law) and s 92(10)(a) (federal jurisdiction over interprovincial works and undertakings). In a decision released in June, Justice Shaina Leonard of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the government’s motion to strike the challenge.

We’ve Got New Harmonized Crowdfunding Rules. But How Will Industry Respond?

By Ryan Clements

On August 4, 2021

In Securities

By: Dr. Ryan Clements

PDF Version: We’ve Got New Harmonized Crowdfunding Rules. But How Will Industry Respond?

Legislation Commented On: National Instrument 45-110, Start-Up Crowdfunding Registration and Prospectus Exemptions

The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) recently published, in final form, a harmonized national framework for securities crowdfunding (National Instrument (NI) 45-110), which, subject to ministerial approval, will come into force on September 21, 2021. This is a positive development and shows that provincial securities regulators can work together to make Canadian capital markets more efficient without a national regulator.

It is uncertain, however, how industry will respond – and this is no fault of the regulator. The harmonized framework balances dual policy pillars of investor protection and fair and efficient capital markets, and this should be applauded. But crowdfunding isn’t a panacea. It’s a tool that may fill a small gap in the capital raising ecosystem for start-ups. One might be skeptical about the net impact it will ultimately have on capital formation in Canada, and there are several good reasons why firms and investors may want to avoid it altogether.

Conflating Dissent with Disloyalty, Allan Inquiry sets a Dangerous Precedent

By Martin Olszynski

On July 30, 2021

In Energy, Environmental

By: Martin Z. Olszynski

PDF Version: Conflating Dissent with Disloyalty, Allan Inquiry sets a Dangerous Precedent

Matter Commented On: The Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

It’s late fall 2022. A popular mayor of a southern Alberta town wakes up to a peculiar email: the Second Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns has reviewed several news reports from 2020 and 2021, as well as his social media account, and has determined that he engaged in an “anti-Alberta energy campaign.”

Just a bit down the highway, a popular Alberta country singer finds a similar email. They’ve each been given two weeks to respond. Confused, each writes back to the Inquiry to insist that they’re absolutely not anti-Alberta: they’re proud Albertans who care deeply about its lands and waters, especially the eastern slopes of the Rockies and the vital headwaters found there.

The AER’s Mandatory Closure Spend Targets are Deficient

By Drew Yewchuk

On July 27, 2021

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The AER’s Mandatory Closure Targets are Deficient

Legislation Commented On: AER Bulletin 2021-23 ‘Mandatory Closure Spend Targets’

This is a follow up post to my June 24, 2021 post on the changes the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is making to the Liability Management Framework and specifically Draft Directive XXX: Licensee Life-Cycle Management (Draft Directive) meant to replace the current Directive 006 once finalized. Readers are encouraged to check that post for background context.