ABLawg - - Page 88

Decision Commented On: Re Alberta Health, F2019-16, 2019 CanLII 33710

This is the third in a series of posts on Alberta’s access to information legislation, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP Act). The first post set out the basic structure of the access to information, and the second post was a case study on the use of the FOIP Act. This post focuses on the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC), which serves as the initial dispute resolution mechanism for FOIP issues. The post also describes how the “adequate alternative remedy principle” can make troubled administrative review bodies into obstacles to effective oversight.

What is the Threshold for Entrapment?

By KMizutani

On March 18, 2020

In Constitutional, Criminal

By: Kenryo Mizutani

PDF Version: What is the Threshold for Entrapment?

Case Commented On: R v Turgeon-Myers, 2019 ABQB 493

In the heist film “Entrapment,” Mac, a professional thief (played by Sean Connery), says, “I don’t like surprises.” Gin, an undercover agent pretending to be a thief herself (played by Catherine Zeta-Jones), replies: “Trust me, there won’t be any.” Mac then replies: “Trust me, there always are surprises.” And there always are surprises.

At first glance, R v Turgeon-Myers, 2019 ABQB 493, may seem like a case about entrapment. Yet upon closer examination, a careful reader may be surprised to learn that there is an evidentiary issue beneath the issue of entrapment. Similar to my earlier blog article about the informant privilege, Turgeon-Myers involved a police informant. This informant provided the police with information about drug trafficking, and the police subsequently conducted an undercover operation to make an arrest. The accused, while initially admitting guilt, applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

Alberta Court of Appeal Opines That Federal Carbon Pricing Legislation Unconstitutional

By Martin Olszynski

On March 17, 2020

In Constitutional, Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Martin Olszynski, Nigel Bankes and Andrew Leach

PDF Version: Alberta Court of Appeal Opines That Federal Carbon Pricing Legislation Unconstitutional

Decision Commented On: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2020 ABCA 74

Last month, the Alberta Court of Appeal released its decision in Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2020 ABCA 74, Alberta’s challenge to the constitutionality of the federal government’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12 (GGPPA). Writing for a majority of three judges, Chief Justice Catherine Fraser concluded that the GGPPAcould not be upheld on the basis of Parliament’s residual power over matters of “peace, order, and good government” (POGG), nor any other potentially relevant federal head of power. Concurring in the result but not the analysis, Justice Wakeling also held that the GGPPA was unconstitutional. Justice Feehan, dissenting, would have upheld the law on the basis of POGG, and the “national concern” branch of that power in particular. The Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision thus stands in contrast to the earlier decisions of the Courts of Appeal of both Saskatchewan (Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act 2019 SKCA 40) (Saskatchewan Reference) and Ontario (Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2019 ONCA 544) (Ontario Reference), where a majority of judges in each court upheld the law as a valid exercise of the national concern branch of the POGG power.

Does the Criminal Law Have the Capacity to Respond to the Intoxicated Automaton?

By Lisa Silver

On March 13, 2020

In Criminal

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: Does the Criminal Law Have the Capacity to Respond to the Intoxicated Automaton?

Case Commented On: R v Brown, 220 ABQB 166

I am at the point in my 1L criminal law class where we start talking about capacity issues, namely whether a person by virtue of mental disorder, automatism and/or intoxication has the capacity to commit a criminal offence. This is a complex and controversial area of the law. In discussing these issues, we criss-cross across the lines between legal, medical and policy concerns. We wade through case law stretching back decades that sometimes fundamentally change the common law and at other times hold strictly to it. Although each capacity issue involves detailed legal tests, when these issues arise together, the legal directions become overly complex and downright confusing. This “perfect storm” of capacity issues arise in the recent decision of R v Brown, 220 ABQB 166, challenging our legal conception of capacity and leaving us wondering whether the criminal law has the capacity to adequately respond.

Net Profits Interest Decision

By Nigel Bankes

On March 11, 2020

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Net Profits Interest Decision

Case Commented On: Hudson King v Lightstream Resources Ltd, 2020 ABQB 149 (CanLII)

William Hudson (WH) of Texas discovered hydrocarbons in a reservoir near Rocanville, Saskatchewan. Lacking the resources to develop the discovery WH assigned the Rocanville properties to Triton (a Texas based corporation) in 1977 in return for $900,000 and a net profits interest (NPI). The NPI Agreement was executed in favour of a trust that WH and his wife had established for the benefit of their three children EHK, AH and CH. The trust was collapsed in 1986 when the youngest child reached 21 and the three children became the counterparties to the NPI Agreement. AH assigned his interest to ACH Holdings in 2009. I refer to EHK, AH, CH and ACH Holdings as the Hudson parties or as the plaintiffs. On the Triton side of the NPI Agreement the interests in the Rocanville properties passed through several hands including TriStar which continued as Petrobakken Energy which changed its name to Lightstream Resources. In September 2014 Lightstream sold and assigned its entire interest to Crescent Point. Lightstream, Crescent Point and the Hudson parties entered into an assignment and novation agreement (reproduced and discussed further below). In what follows, I sometimes refer for the sake of simplicity to the party from time to time holding the Triton interest in the NPI Agreement as the operator.

Freedom of Information in Alberta: The Troubles With the OIPC

What is the Threshold for Entrapment?

Alberta Court of Appeal Opines That Federal Carbon Pricing Legislation Unconstitutional

Does the Criminal Law Have the Capacity to Respond to the Intoxicated Automaton?

Net Profits Interest Decision