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

More Competition For Underground Disposal Space

By

On April 3, 2020

In Energy, Environmental

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: More Competition For Underground Disposal Space

Decisions Commented On: 2020 ABAER 005, Pure Environmental Waste Management Ltd. Applications for the Hangingstone Project February 27, 2020 and 2020 ABAER 004, Pure Environmental Waste Management Ltd. Regulatory Appeal of Approval WM 211 for Pure Environmental Waste Management Ltd.’s Hangingstone Facility February 27, 2020

Conventional and non-conventional oil and gas operations frequently seek to dispose of liquid oilfield waste in underground formations that have suitable injectivity and sealing properties. Not all formations are suitable for injection purposes and even those that are suitable may have limited capacity, especially where the characteristics of the formation limit opportunities for pressure leakoff. Locally limited capacity or scarcity may lead to competition for the available disposal capacity.

These two decisions (and especially 2020 ABAER 005) address the licensing of disposal wells in such a competitive setting. These are not the first such examples we have seen in Alberta. I commented on an earlier AER decision (2014) on a disposal well application here. See also Bankes, “Disputes between the owners of different sub-surface resources” in Don Zillman et al (eds), The Law of Energy Underground (Oxford University Press, 2014) p 433.

Read More

COVID-19 and the Suspension of Routine Environmental Reporting in Alberta

By

On April 2, 2020

In COVID-19, Emergencies Act, Environmental

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and the Suspension of Routine Environmental Reporting in Alberta

Orders Commented On: Ministerial Orders 15/2020, 16/2020, 17/2020 (Environment and Parks)

Section 52.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37 provides a minister with power to suspend or modify the application of legislation which they are responsible for under the Government Organization Act, RSA 2000, c G-10. This post looks at 3 ministerial orders made by the Minister of Environment and Parks this week under section 52.1 which suspend certain reporting requirements under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000 c E-12, the Water Act, RSA 2000 c W-3, the Public Lands Act, RSA 2000, c P-40, the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation, Alta Reg 133/2019, and the Renewable Fuels Standard Regulation, Alta Reg 29/2010, on the basis that these reporting obligations are not in the public interest during the COVID-19 public health emergency. These orders, together with other public health orders issued by Alberta during this crisis, are published here.

Read More

COVID-19 and the Public Health Act (Alberta)

By

On March 31, 2020

In COVID-19, Health Law

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and the Public Health Act (Alberta)

Legislation Commented On: Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37

All levels of government in Canada are working hard to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and mitigate its severe impacts on public health. Despite the fact that COVID-19 is a national emergency, the federal government has not declared it as such under the Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp) (I previously wrote about this here). For now, we have a collaboration of public health emergency declarations made by provincial, territorial and municipal governments. Alberta declared a public health emergency on March 17, on the recommendation of the Minister of Health and on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, with Order in Council 80/2020 issued under section 52.1 of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37. This post critically examines how Alberta is exercising its emergency legal power under this legislation.

Read More

COVID-19 and the Emergencies Act (Canada)

By

On March 27, 2020

In Constitutional, COVID-19, Emergencies Act

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and the Emergencies Act (Canada)

Legislation Commented On: Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp)

As we move deeper into the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, provincial, territorial and municipal governments are now using legal rules to impose self-isolation and social distancing measures for the common good of preventing community transmission of the virus. The narrative in daily updates from government leaders and public health officials has shifted away from encouraging voluntary practices and more towards invoking command and control, as evidence mounts that voluntary suggestions are not being followed. Command and control is, however, largely going to be a general deterrence measure because actual enforcement in individual cases will be very difficult and resource intensive (hence why some jurisdictions, such as the State of Oregon, are encouraging citizens to help with enforcement by reporting violators of public health orders). All of this underscores the fact that we are truly in the midst of a socio-economic crisis, and has led to suggestions (e.g. see here and here) that federal cabinet issue a proclamation of national emergency under the Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp) and exercise the powers granted thereunder.

Read More

“Extraordinarily Difficult”: Parenting Time and the Rights of Children in Cases Involving Family Violence

By

On March 20, 2020

In Family

By: Jennifer Koshan and Irene Oh

PDF Version: “Extraordinarily Difficult”: Parenting Time and the Rights of Children in Cases Involving Family Violence

Case Commented On: DAF v SRG, 2020 ABCA 25 (CanLII)

Family law cases can raise issues that are very challenging for the legal system to address, especially where there has been domestic violence. As the Alberta Court of Appeal recently noted in DAF v SRG, these cases can entail “extraordinarily difficult decisions” with “potentially profound consequences for the parties and the children involved” (at para 19). Yet these cases are “made challenging by limited time and often conflicting affidavits” and may involve “disparate proceedings in multiple courts” (at para 19). Alberta was moving toward a Unified Family Court that would have consolidated family proceedings in one court presided over by judges experienced in family law. However, in late February the government put this initiative on hold, apparently because of costs.

The decision of Justices Patricia Rowbotham, Sheila Greckol and Dawn Pentelechuk in DAF v SRG underlines the need for a Unified Family Court in Alberta, raising issues about what level of parental contact with children is appropriate where there has been domestic violence and how the voices of children can be brought forward in such cases. The decision also provides an opportunity to discuss recent amendments to the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp) and what impact those amendments should have on family law in Alberta.

Read More

Page 87 of 412

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén