University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

“Textbook Climate Denialism”: A Submission to the Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

By

On January 14, 2021

In Energy

By: Martin Olszynski

 PDF Version: “Textbook Climate Denialism”: A Submission to the Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns 

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

After two deadline extensions and an additional $1 million dollars, Premier Jason Kenney’s Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns is entering its final stretch (for previous ABlawg posts, see here, here, here, and here). Back in October of 2020, I decided to seek, and was granted, standing to participate in the Inquiry. As has been my practice in such matters, what follows is my submission, dated December 15, 2020, modified only for formatting purposes. Links to reports provided to me by the Commissioner are to the Inquiry’s website, which has recently been updated.

Read More

The Court of Appeal Rebukes the Environmental Appeal Board and the Director for an Erroneously Narrow Interpretation, and Unreasonable Application, of the phrase “Directly Affected” in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

By

On January 11, 2021

In Environmental

By: Kirk Lambrecht Q.C.

PDF Version: The Court of Appeal Rebukes the Environmental Appeal Board and the Director for an Erroneously Narrow Interpretation, and Unreasonable Application, of the phrase “Directly Affected” in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

Decision Commented On: Normtek Radiation Services Ltd v Alberta Environmental Appeal Board, 2020 ABCA 456 (CanLII), reversing Normtek Radiation Services Ltd v Alberta (Environmental Appeals Board), 2018 ABQB 911 (CanLII), which upheld Normtek Radiation Services Ltd. v Director, Red Deer-North Saskatchewan Region, Alberta Environment and Parks, re: Secure Energy Services Inc. (2 March 2018), Appeal No. 16-024-D (AEAB)

This brief case comment offers a proposition on the cause of a yawning gap between (i) purposes defined in section 2 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA); and (ii) practices of the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) and the Directors under EPEA.

The proposition advanced here is that the phrase “directly affected” in EPEA has been, for decades, interpreted and applied by the EAB and Directors under EPEA in such a way as to avoid Ministerial oversight of Directors’ decisions regarding the environment. In Normtek, the Court of Appeal attempted to correct these practices. In the result, the Court remitted the matter of Normtek’s standing to appeal to the EAB back to the EAB for reconsideration in accordance with the reasons of the Court. 

Read More

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Confirms High Court Decision on the Relationship Between a Farmout Agreement and an Operating Agreement

By

On January 4, 2021

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Confirms High Court Decision on the Relationship Between a Farmout Agreement and an Operating Agreement

Decision Commented On: Apache North Sea Limited v Euroil Exploration Limited and Edison SPA, [2020] EWCA Civ 1397

In this decision, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales confirmed Judge Pelling’s decision in the High Court with respect to the drilling costs Apache was entitled to recover from Euroil under the terms of a farmout agreement (FOA) and its related joint operating agreement (JOA). I commented on Judge Pelling’s decision here and I refer readers to that earlier post for a more detailed statement of the facts, as well as references to Canadian decisions dealing with the relationship between an FOA and the JOA.

In that earlier post I suggested that the FOA at issue here would likely be denominated as a “farmout and participation agreement” in a Canadian context insofar as the drilling obligation was not a sole risk obligation of the farmee (Euroil) but rather was a shared risk operation for which Euroil was to cover only a percentage of the costs. The farmor, Apache, was to carry out the drilling operation as operator and was also responsible for a percentage of the costs.

Read More

ABlawg: Year in Review 2020

By

On December 31, 2020

In Uncategorized

By: Admin

PDF Version: ABlawg: Year in Review 2020

Dedication

This year in review post is dedicated to the memory of Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., O.C., O.B.C., who passed away suddenly on December 7, 2020. As the In Memoriam page on the website of his firm Arvay Finlay notes, Joe was “one of the most brilliant and successful constitutional and civil liberties lawyers of his time.” He represented parties in “some of the defining cases of our generation including, among many others, medical assistance in dying, access to legal safe injection sites, the right of workers to associate in pursuit of workplace goals, and LGBTQ rights.”

For many bloggers on this site, Joe was both a hero and a role model.

ABlawg is pleased to provide this compilation of highlights from 2020, summarizing and synthesizing bloggers’ contributions in different areas of law during the past year. Overall, it was a busy year that included important commentary on a range of matters, including, of course, various dimensions of COVID-19.

Read More

Reforming Family Maintenance and Support for Children: Bridging Gaps, or Unduly Restricting Testamentary Freedom?

By

On December 15, 2020

In Family, Wills and Estates

By: Matthew Mazurek

 PDF Version: Reforming Family Maintenance and Support for Children: Bridging Gaps, or Unduly Restricting Testamentary Freedom?

Report Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Family Maintenance and Support from the Estate of a Person Who Stood in the Place of a Parent, Report for Discussion 34 (3 November 2020)

ALRI is seeking feedback on Report for Discussion 34 before making final recommendations. Anyone can give feedback by completing a short survey before January 31, 2021.

When a second family in Alberta separates, a child may seek support from a person who stands in the place of a parent under the Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5. However, when a person who stands in the place of a parent dies in an intact second family, a child in need is prevented from seeking support from that person’s estate under the Wills and Succession Act, SA 2010, c W-12.2 (WSA). From a child’s perspective, there is little difference between a parent and a parent-like adult separating and the death of one partner. In either circumstance, the child has lost a source of emotional, intellectual, and financial support. Excluding some children in second families from accessing support while providing it to others may not make for prudent policy in today’s legal system. This is what we mean in our Report for Discussion 34 when we say that there may be a gap in the law for the purposes of support for children in Alberta. Should this difference persist in the law as a nod to the testamentary freedom of individuals? Should the gap be bridged by reform to the WSA? Report for Discussion 34 reviews the existing law, analyzes arguments for and against reform, and makes preliminary recommendations.

Read More

Page 85 of 436

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén