ABlawg

The Implementing Regulation for Bill 12: The Liabilities Management Statutes Amendments Act, 2020

Posted on June 8, 2020 by Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Implementing Regulation for Bill 12: The Liabilities Management Statutes Amendments Act, 2020

Matter Commented On: Orphan Fund Delegated Administration Amendment Regulation, OC 174/2020

Bill 12, the Liabilities Management Statutes Amendments Act, 2020, amongst other things, authorized the delegation of additional responsibilities to the Orphan Well Association (OWA). I provided commentary on Bill 12 in a previous post here. The entry into force of Bill 12 is set for June 15, 2020, and this amendment to the Orphan Fund Delegated Administration Regulation, Alta Reg 45/2001 (Delegation Regulation), effective the same day, implements that incremental delegation and clarifies some additional issues.

This post draws attention to four elements of the amendment: (1) the definitions of “holder of the mineral rights” and of “person who has the right to win, work and recover a mineral”; (2) the limitation of liability provisions of the Delegation Regulation; (3) the applicability of the audit and inspection provisions of the Government Organization Act, RSA 2000 c G-10 (GOA); and (4) the enhanced authority of the OWA to enter into and expend funds pursuant to “agreements” with other parties. Continue reading →

Posted in Energy, Oil & Gas | Comments Off

Lawyer Ethics in the Virtual Courtroom

Posted on June 3, 2020 by Gideon Christian

By: Gideon Christian

PDF Version: Lawyer Ethics in the Virtual Courtroom

The COVID-19 pandemic has radically altered the way we live, work, and play. As will be examined below, it has altered the way lawyers conduct litigation. By mid-March 2020, the justice system in Canada (and in most other jurisdictions around the world) was scrambling to change its default ways of doing business – from the service of court documents to hearing of matters before the courts. Within a very short timeline, the courts and the legal profession quickly became open to doing things in a way they have long resisted.

Practice directions emerged overnight permitting parties to electronically file and serve documents. Virtual hearing became the default mode of court hearings in many jurisdictions during the early stage of the pandemic. On March 19, 2020, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales issued a directive that, “[t]he default position now in all jurisdictions must be that hearings should be conducted with one, more than one or all participants attending remotely.”

Soon, in-person hearings gave way to e-person hearings using innovative videoconferencing technologies like Zoom, WebEx, Teams, Skype, GoToMeeting, BlueJeans, CourtCall, etc. For many in the legal profession who were previously familiar with these technologies, the transition was very smooth. For the Luddites who were forced to embrace the change, the transition turned out to be (to their amazement), not as difficult as they had previously thought. They have discovered that legal technology is no rocket science after all. Continue reading →

Posted in COVID-19, Ethics and the Legal Profession | Comments Off

Extraditing the Individual in the Meng Wanzhou Decision

Posted on June 2, 2020 by Lisa Silver

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: Extraditing the Individual in the Meng Wanzhou Decision

Case Commented On: United States v Meng, 2020 BCSC 785 (CanLII)

The arrest and extradition of Meng Wanzhou is extraordinary. The case has attracted global interest and has highlighted the fragility of our diplomatic networks. It has the workings of a suspense novel with its political intrigue, double-entendres and power struggles. It brings into question our global alliances and lays bare our international aspirations. But this is not a le Carré novel nor is it a strategic game of Risk. The case, at its heart, is not dissimilar to most extradition hearings in Canada. In all such cases, the stakes are high, international relations are engaged, and the rule of law is tested in both the surrendering state and the requesting one. Moreover, in all extradition cases there is an individual, a person who must either stay or go. To keep extradition at the level of the individual is hard, but it is critical to do so for both legal reasons and human ones.

This post keeps that individual, Meng Wanzhou, in mind. For it is Meng Wanzhou who faces serious criminal charges and for whom this extradition decision will have direct and serious consequences. That is why I am looking for the individual in this recent extradition decision rendered by Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes on the “double criminality” requirement, in which a person is extradited only when the conduct amounting to the criminal offence in the requesting state is also conduct amounting to a criminal offence in Canada. I am doing so because people matter, and because the law requires it.

Continue reading →

Posted in Conflict of Laws, International Law | Comments Off

Sex Offender Registries and Persons Found Not Criminally Responsible: Exit Ramps and Equality

Posted on June 1, 2020 by Jennifer Koshan

By: Jennifer Koshan and Joe Koshan

PDF Version: Sex Offender Registries and Persons Found Not Criminally Responsible: Exit Ramps and Equality

Case Commented On: G. v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 264 (CanLII); leave to appeal granted, 2019 CanLII 89651 (SCC)

On February 20, 2020, we had the opportunity to watch the Supreme Court of Canada hearing in G. v. Ontario (Attorney General) in Ottawa (webcast available here). The Supreme Court was closed to public hearings in mid-March as a result of COVID-19, and we feel very fortunate to have had the chance to attend this hearing in person.

The case concerns the issue of whether the provincial and federal sex offender registries created by Christopher’s Law (Sex Offender Registry), 2000, SO 2000, c 1 and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, SC 2004, c 10 (SOIRA) violate the Charter rights of persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD). The Charter claimant, G, was found NCRMD on two counts of sexual assault, one count of unlawful confinement, and one count of harassment against his then-wife in June 2002. He received an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board (the body responsible for handling cases of persons found NCRMD) in August 2003. Despite this discharge, G was required to register with the Ontario and federal sex offender registries and was subject to their requirements for life. Persons who are found NCRMD have no ability to remove themselves from the Ontario registry at any point and can only apply for removal from the federal registry after 20 years. However, persons who are found guilty of sexual offences but receive a discharge at the time of sentencing are not required to register either provincially or federally, and persons who are convicted of sexual offences and later receive a pardon or record suspension may have their names deleted from the provincial registry. Neither option is available to persons found NCRMD.

Continue reading →

Posted in Constitutional, Equality | Comments Off

Different Uses of Subsurface Storage Space: Natural Gas Storage or Compressed Air Energy Storage?

Posted on May 28, 2020 by Nigel Bankes

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Different Uses of Subsurface Storage Space: Natural Gas Storage or Compressed Air Energy Storage?

Decision commented on: OEB Decision and Order EB-2019-0287, Tribute Energy Storage Inc., Application for an order to revoke the designation of the natural gas storage areas known as the Bayfield Pool and the Stanley 4-7-XI Pool, in the County of Huron, April 9, 2020

This post focuses on an application by the project proponent and licensee (Tribute or TESI) to have the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) revoke an existing designation of a depleted gas reservoir as a natural gas storage area, with a view to potentially having the same reservoir re-licensed as a site for compressed air energy storage (CAES).

While the application to revoke the designation is the focus of this post, there are two other underlying themes. The first is the question about how we make decisions on the competing uses of underground (storage) space or pore space. I have commented on this issue before on ABlawg; the most recent post is here, with links to earlier posts. A second theme relates to the importance of establishing appropriate rules for energy (electricity) storage projects, whether these projects are battery projects, pumped hydro or, compressed air energy storage. These rules include not only the necessary tenure and licensing rules for the physical project, which is the focus here, but also, in some cases, the appropriate market rules. Should a storage project be treated as generation to the extent that it supplies energy? Should it be treated as load to the extent that it draws energy to pump water upstream or to inject compressed air? Should it be treated as transmission to the extent that it might avoid the need to reinforce transmission to an in isolated community? And how should storage be able to participate in the different ancillary markets? The appropriate characterization is important because characterization affects how the provider is compensated – either by market rules or cost of service.

Continue reading →

Posted in Energy | Comments Off