When Are the COVID-19 Related Changes and Suspensions to Albertan Law Scheduled to End?

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: When Are the COVID-19 Related Changes and Suspensions to Albertan Law Scheduled to End?

Decision Commented On: COVID-19 orders and legislation

A recurring theme of recent ABlawg posts is the difficulty in determining what legal authority is being used to make emergency-based changes to Alberta law due to COVID-19, and precisely what the changes are. This post is a variation on that theme, setting out the end dates set for a selection of COVID-19 related legal changes, and discussing how the end dates should be re-thought soon. Continue reading →

AER Refuses Transfer of Foothills Sour Gas Approvals from Shell Canada to Pieridae Energy

By: Shaun Fluker and Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: AER Refuses Transfer of Foothills Sour Gas Approvals from Shell Canada to Pieridae Energy

Decision Commented On: Alberta Energy Regulator Decision, Shell Canada Limited Transfer of Ownership Including the Waterton Sour Gas Plant EPEA Application No 021-258 and Jumping Pound Sour Gas Plant EPEA Application No. 015-11587, May 13, 2020

On May 13, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) denied an application by Shell Canada to transfer regulatory approvals with respect to its foothills sour gas assets (facilities, wells, pipelines, and related infrastructure) to Pieridae Energy. The subject approvals are issued under a host of energy and environmental legislation, including the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12 (EPEA). This post comments on the rationale given by the AER for this decision.

Continue reading →

The Discipline of Vavilov? Judicial Review in the Absence of Reasons

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Discipline of Vavilov? Judicial Review in the Absence of Reasons

Decision commented on: Alexis v Alberta (Environment and Parks), 2020 ABCA 188 (CanLII)

One of the “wait-and-sees” following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII) was the question of whether or not (and if so, to what extent) the Court’s guidance as to reasonableness review (where applicable) would result in a greater degree of scrutiny of the reasoning supporting administrative decisions. Another but related question was the application of that guidance to decisions for which there is no duty to provide reasons, and where the decision-maker provides no such reasons. This recent decision of the Court of Appeal (unanimous in terms of the decision to quash – some difference between the members of the Court as to the remedy) provides guidance on both questions.

The decision does suggest that reasonableness scrutiny will be more searching and that the failure to provide reasons may not render the decision inscrutable or presumptively reasonable. One possible result of this is that it might lead government lawyers acting for statutory decision makers to advise their clients to provide reasons, even where not obliged to do so by statute or natural justice. The rationale for doing so would be to make sure that as convincing a case as possible can be made for the decision in question, and to forestall the possibility that a reviewing court will draw inferences or identify unbridgeable gaps in reasoning between an application and an ultimate decision. If so that would be a good outcome. As another panel of the Court of Appeal has observed in another recent decision (Mohr v Strathcona (County), 2020 ABCA 187 (CanLII) at para 35 (per Slatter JA)), reasons serve “(a) to tell the parties why a decision was made; (b) to provide public accountability for that decision; and (c) to permit effective appellate review.” See also an earlier post on the importance of reasons in administrative decision-making in a somewhat different context: “Reasons, Respect and Reconciliation.”

Continue reading →

Incorporating Waivers of Liability into Contracts

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: Incorporating Waivers of Liability into Contracts

Case Commented On: Apps v Grouse Mountain Resorts Ltd., 2020 BCCA 78 (CanLII)

Standard form agreements raise unique contracting issues. They are drafted by the more powerful party, they are take-it-or-leave-it agreements with no room for negotiation, and they typically contain waivers to limit the drafting party’s liability. And yet, most providers of services and/or goods use them to transact with the public. Given the fact that consumers rarely read these agreements before signing off on them, how can the requirement of consensus ad idem – i.e. a meeting of the minds – be established? Anticipated or expected terms do not give rise to this issue, but, if a clause is particularly onerous or unexpected, such as an “own negligence” clause, the drafting party must establish that the other party was notified of the clause, either through reasonable notice or previous experience. Otherwise, the clause will not be incorporated into the agreement.

These issues were raised in the recent BCCA decision in Apps v Grouse Mountain Resorts Ltd., 2020 BCCA 78 (CanLII) (Apps), a case involving a snowboarding accident at a British Columbia resort. After a summary of the decision, this post analyses the concept of knowledge when it comes to unsigned documents.

This post also argues that the current state of the law does not require as much as it should of occupiers, given the substantial benefit they derive from these waivers at the substantial cost to plaintiffs. It discusses the public policy choices involved in providing occupiers such broad scope to limit their liability, and proposes stricter rules to govern these kinds of clauses to better protect customers. Continue reading →

COVID-19 and the Suspension of Environmental Monitoring in the Oil Sands

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and the Suspension of Environmental Monitoring in the Oil Sands

Decisions Commented On: Alberta Energy Regulator Decisions 20200505A, 20200501C, 20200501B, and 20200501A

Last week the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) issued decisions 20200429D (subsequently replaced with 20200505A), 20200501C, 20200501B, and 20200501A, which suspend environmental monitoring requirements associated with oil sands mines operated by Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Suncor Energy, Fort Hills Energy Corporation, Syncrude Canada, and Imperial Oil Resources Limited. These decisions relieve the named operators from environmental monitoring on matters such as groundwater, surface water, sulphur emissions, wildlife, and wetlands. The suspension is in place until further notice. Similar to Order 17/2020 issued by the Minister of Environment and Parks under section 52.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37, which suspended routine environmental reporting by industry, these AER decisions were made in response to COVID-19 but offer little justification for granting such extraordinary relief from regulatory requirements.

Continue reading →