Page 65

Matter Commented On: CMOH Order 38-2020

The Opposition is calling for the release of public health recommendations made by the Chief Medical Officer of Health to cabinet which informed the decision announced on November 24 to declare a second public health emergency and to impose enhanced measures to contain the spread of COVID-19. These enhanced measures are described at COVID-19 info for Albertans: Mandatory public health measures and those which came into force on November 24 are set out in CMOH Order 38-2020. In response to questions from the media at the November 26 update, both the Minister of Health and the Chief Medical Officer of Health stated the recommendations cannot be disclosed because of cabinet confidence – a constitutional convention in a Westminster government which keeps cabinet deliberations in secret for purposes of governance (see here for a discussion of these important functions). This convention is also codified in section 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25. What does the common law say on this?

COVID-19 and Rule by Fiat under Alberta’s Public Health Act

By Shaun Fluker

On November 26, 2020

In COVID-19, Health Law

By: Shaun Fluker and Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: COVID-19 and Rule by Fiat under Alberta’s Public Health Act

Matters Commented On: Order in Council 354/2020, CMOH Order 38-2020, and COVID-19 info for Albertans: Mandatory public health measures

Alberta declared its second COVID-19 related public health emergency on November 24 with Order in Council 354/2020, which was issued under section 52.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37 (the Act). This declaration is in place for 90 days, unless extended by resolution of the legislature pursuant to section 52.8 of the Act. This declaration also reinstates the controversial power of ministers to unilaterally amend statutes (see here) over the holiday season. On the same day as this declaration, the Premier, the Minister of Health, and the Chief Medical Officer of Health announced new restrictions to “bend the curve” at a news conference. The Premier and the Minister of Health stated that many of the new restrictions would take effect immediately with the backstop of legal sanction (including $1000 tickets). These measures were considered and determined without any legislative debate, despite the fact that the Legislature is currently sitting. Public debate on these new legislative measures seems to have amounted to nothing more than questions from media at the news conference. COVID-19 has many victims; democracy should not be one of them.

Western Canadian Lithium as a Critical and Strategic Mineral for Clean Tech Battery Storage Technologies

By Rudiger Tscherning

On November 25, 2020

In Uncategorized

By: Rudiger Tscherning and Brady Chapman

PDF Version: Western Canadian Lithium as a Critical and Strategic Mineral for Clean Tech Battery Storage Technologies

Matters Commented On: The Canadian Minerals and Metals Plan 2019; Review of the Alberta Mineral Development Strategy 2002 by the Alberta Mineral Advisory Council; Québec Plan for the Development of Critical and Strategic Minerals (2020-2025)

Critical and strategic minerals (CSMs), including lithium, are essential for the transition of the global economy to “net-zero.” The COVID-19 pandemic will only serve to accelerate this transition. Calls for rebuilding economies on ambitious and sustainable climate principles have become louder since the pandemic began. At a multilateral level, the April 2020 Petersberg Climate Dialogue established clear directions towards a sustainable and climate-focused post-pandemic recovery. Such recovery plans are also echoed in the European Commission’s Next Generation EU recovery plan, and the September 2020 Government of Canada’s Speech from the Throne, both of which set out clear impulses towards developing clean tech industries as part of post-pandemic economic recovery.

However, CSMs, such as lithium, have been recognized for their importance well before the pandemic. In 2019, the International Renewable Energy Agency reported that global sales of electric vehicles, which rely heavily on lithium-ion batteries, increased significantly from 500,000 units in 2015 to over 2 million units in 2018. The Bank of Canada recently cited the International Energy Agency’s projection that there will be 120 million plug-in hybrid or battery electric vehicles on the world’s roads by 2030. In Canada, the share of all electric vehicles amounted to approximately 2.3%, or 90,100 vehicles, of the total vehicle market in 2018, with 51% consisting of battery electric vehicles. In addition, the rapid scaling-up of wind and solar renewable electricity generation is not only vital for decarbonizing global energy systems, but will crucially depend on electricity storage technologies. Lithium-ion batteries are efficient and have fast charging and discharging rates, making them ideal for the large-scale implementation of renewable energy sources to meet baseload power demands.

The Standard of Review and the Duty to Consult and Accommodate Indigenous Peoples: What is the Impact of Vavilov? Part 2

By Howard Kislowicz

On November 24, 2020

In Aboriginal, Administrative Law

By: Howard Kislowicz and Robert Hamilton

PDF Version: The Standard of Review and the Duty to Consult and Accommodate Indigenous Peoples: What is the Impact of Vavilov? Part 2

Case Commented On: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII)

In our last post, we laid out some background on how the standard of review applies in cases involving the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult and accommodate (DTCA) Indigenous peoples. We argued that the changes brought by Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII) with respect to statutory appeals – where a statute provides that a government decision may be appealed to a court – might allow legislatures to insulate the decisions of the executive by subjecting them to a “palpable and overriding error” standard of review rather than a reasonableness standard. In this post, we look at the other, more common kind of case that arises in administrative law: judicial scrutiny of government decisions through an application for judicial review. Here, the standard of review analysis differs.

In applications for judicial review, Vavilov establishes a general presumption that the standard of review for an administrative decision will be reasonableness (at paras 23–32). However, it also carves out some exceptions to this presumption, in which the standard of review will be correctness. The relevant exception for this post is for questions regarding “the scope of Aboriginal and treaty rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982” (at para 55). Important ambiguities persist about what this means for the DTCA. On one hand, DTCA litigation does not determine Aboriginal rights. The DTCA was designed to apply where the Crown considered an action that could impact an Aboriginal right that had not yet been adjudicated. Though it was later extended to established rights, it remains a procedural duty on the Crown rather than an Aboriginal right per se). If this is the case, this would suggest that the correctness exception does not include DTCA issues. On the other hand, the DTCA is a constitutional obligation understood as a limit on the exercise of sovereignty; it shares much in common with the other issues to which Vavilov applies the correctness standard. We argue that the logic supporting the existence of the constitutional exception in Vavilov also supports the application of the correctness standard to a broader range of DTCA issues than is currently the practice. This post considers how Vavilov may have changed considerations of judicial reviews arising in DTCA contexts.

Bill C-12, Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act: A Preliminary Review

By David V Wright

On November 23, 2020

In Climate Change, Environmental

By: David V. Wright

PDF Version: Bill C-12, Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act: A Preliminary Review

Matter Commented On: Bill C-12, Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, 2nd Sess, 43rd Parl, 2020 (first reading 19 November 2020)

Just a few days ago, the federal government tabled Bill C-12, Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. This post provides a brief overview and preliminary reflections on the proposed law. Overall, the bill represents a significant milestone in Canadian climate policy, a realm that has been plagued by decades of setting-then-missing emission reduction targets. No previous federal government has so explicitly committed to a long-term emissions reduction pathway and milestones, let alone one with numerous accountability and transparency mechanisms. However, for reasons I discuss below, despite being characterized by the government as “binding”, the proposed law features a number of weaknesses and limitations. Further, while tabling this bill is a commendable step (especially if it becomes law), and is the result of many years of hard work and input from environmental organizations, it leaves difficult, long-standing conversations unaddressed.

COVID-19 and Cabinet Secrets

COVID-19 and Rule by Fiat under Alberta’s Public Health Act

Western Canadian Lithium as a Critical and Strategic Mineral for Clean Tech Battery Storage Technologies

The Standard of Review and the Duty to Consult and Accommodate Indigenous Peoples: What is the Impact of Vavilov? Part 2

Bill C-12, Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act: A Preliminary Review