ABLawg - - Page 82

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.

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

By Jennifer Koshan

On June 1, 2020

In Constitutional, Equality

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.

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

By Nigel Bankes

On May 28, 2020

In Energy

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.

Can an Alberta Landlord’s Duty to Make Reasonable Efforts to Negotiate a Meaningful Payment Plan with Residential Tenants before Evicting Tenants be Enforced?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On May 25, 2020

In COVID-19, Landlord/Tenant

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Can an Alberta Landlord’s Duty to Make Reasonable Efforts to Negotiate a Meaningful Payment Plan with Residential Tenants before Evicting Tenants be Enforced?

Legislation Commented On: Ministerial Order No. SA: 005/2020 [Service Alberta]

Since May 1, 2020, a landlord in Alberta has been able to evict a residential tenant for non-payment of rent and utilities even if the failure to pay is due to circumstances beyond the tenant’s control caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. At least one politically prominent landlord has already starting eviction proceedings (see here and here). In place of the suspension of evictions that expired April 30, the government introduced a duty on landlords to make reasonable efforts to enter into meaningful payment plans with their tenants. According to the government description of this new duty (in Rent Payment Plans COVID-19), landlords will have to prove they made these efforts before landlords can issue a 14-day notice or apply to the courts or Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) to terminate a tenancy for non-payment of rent. Landlords may eventually have to prove that they made those efforts if tenants sue them or refuse to leave the rental premises, but there is a gap in the new law that makes it unnecessarily difficult for tenants – or anyone else – to enforce a landlord’s new duty. The Minister for Service Alberta needs to amend section 29 of the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA) and section 32 of the Mobile Home Sites Tenancies Act, RSA 2000, c M-20 (MHSTA) to allow tenants who have failed to pay rent to object to a 14-day notice terminating a tenancy on the basis that the landlord has not complied with its new duty.

Considerations in the Design of a Royalty Regime for Helium

By Nigel Bankes

On May 21, 2020

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Considerations in the Design of a Royalty Regime for Helium

Matters commented on: Press Release, “New royalty rate responds to soaring helium interest” Minister of Energy, May 13, 2020; Department of Energy, Information Letter IL 2020-22 , Helium Royalty Rate, May 13, 2020; Natural Gas Royalty Regulation, 2009 (AR 221/2008) as amended by OC 154/2020; and Natural Gas Royalty Regulation, 2017 (AR 211/2016) as amended by OC 155/ 2020.

On May 13, 2020 Minister Sonya Savage announced the establishment of a new royalty rate for helium produced from Crown lands. The new rate (5% minus a 0.75% helium royalty adjustment factor, for an effective rate of 4.25%) replaces a zero royalty rate for helium production. The press release suggests that the proposed royalty structure “helps set the stage for investment” by providing some certainty while “ensuring a fair price for Albertans.” (This is misleading. The market will set the price not the royalty.) The press release goes on to indicate that, “[t]his effective royalty rate is set for an initial period of five years. At that time, the rate will be reviewed to ensure it remains competitive and allows for any necessary adjustments.” The accompanying Information Letter issued by the Department (IL 2020-22) suggests that the review is to be limited to the appropriateness of the 0.75% adjustment factor, not the entire rate.

The new royalty is implemented by amendments to the Natural Gas Royalty Regulations of 2009 and 2017 (each applies to different ‘vintages’ of production) and made retroactive to April 1, 2020. (Prior to these amendments there was a requirement (see IL 2018-25, now revoked), that “operators producing and selling helium must report monthly helium production volumes and monthly average selling prices ….”) The new royalty will only apply to helium produced from lands where the mines and minerals are vested in the Crown. If helium is produced, saved and sold from private mineral lands, the applicable royalty will be established by the terms of the lease between the owner of the mines and minerals and the working interest owners.

Extraditing the Individual in the Meng Wanzhou Decision

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

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

Can an Alberta Landlord’s Duty to Make Reasonable Efforts to Negotiate a Meaningful Payment Plan with Residential Tenants before Evicting Tenants be Enforced?

Considerations in the Design of a Royalty Regime for Helium