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

Waiting for a Credible Cost Estimate of Oil and Gas Closure Liabilities and the Problem with CARL

Regulatory Bulletin Commented On: AER Bulletin 2024-11: Conditional Adjustment of Reclamation Liability (CARL) Program and New Edition of Directive 088 and Manual 023

PDF Version: Waiting for a Credible Cost Estimate of Oil and Gas Liabilities and the Problem with CARL

This post describes and assesses the Conditional Adjustment of Reclamation Liability (CARL) Program announced by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) in April 2024 and discusses a central question about Alberta’s conventional oil and gas closure liabilities: the absence of a credible official cost estimate. “Conventional oil and gas” in this context means wells, pipelines, and facilities, but excludes Large Facilities and oilsands mines, which have separate regulatory systems.

You Shall Not Pass Go: The End of Monopoly (and Self-Governance) for BC Lawyers

By: Michael Ilg

Matter Commented On: Bill 21– 2024, Legal Professions Act, 5th Session, 42nd Parliament (2024)

PDF Version: You Shall Not Pass Go: The End of Monopoly (and Self-Governance) for BC Lawyers

What is the difference between a dairy farmer and a lawyer? The most obvious answer might be that one produces a good that has social value, while the other one is a lawyer. A more nuanced answer might be that while Canadian dairy farmers have been extraordinarily successful (or rather notorious) in maintaining their regulation protected monopoly, lawyers, at least in British Columbia, are on the precipice of losing theirs. The object of this short post is to offer some preliminary observations on the BC government’s Bill 21, the proposed new Legal Professions Act, which will do away with the Law Society of BC.

Two Decades of Nunavut Fisheries Litigation and the Meaning of “Special Consideration”

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated v Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2024 FC 649 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Two Decades of Nunavut Fisheries Litigation and the Meaning of “Special Consideration”

Ever since the ratification of the Nunavut Agreement (Agreement) in 1993, Inuit of Nunavut and especially Inuit of the Qikiqtani region of Nunavut have been attempting to use the Agreement, as well as other levers, to obtain an increased share of fisheries quota, principally for Greenland halibut (turbot) and Northern shrimp, for the waters offshore of Baffin Island. One can think of this as a process of recapturing or repatriating a resource to Nunavut and Nunavummiut that was largely appropriated by fishery interests based in the Atlantic provinces. I first wrote about this process twenty years ago: “Implementing the Fisheries Provisions of the Nunavut Claim: Re-capturing the Resource?” (2003) 12 J Environmental L & Policy 141-204. This most recent decision finally puts some teeth into the “special consideration” language of s 15.3.7 of the Agreement.

An Open Letter Regarding the Response to Recent Protests at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary

PDF Version: An Open Letter Regarding the Response to Recent Protests at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary

Editor’s Note:

This post is a reproduction of a letter sent by faculty members at the University of Alberta and University of Calgary Faculties of Law to the Presidents of the Universities of Alberta and Calgary, Calgary and Edmonton Police Services, and the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service regarding the response to encampments at the universities on May 9 and 11, 2024.

 May 14, 2024

President Ed McCauley, University of Calgary
president@ucalgary.ca

President Bill Flanagan, University of Alberta
president@ualberta.ca

Alberta Crown Prosecution Service
jsg-acps.calgaryprosecutions@gov.ab.ca
edmontonprosecutions@gov.ab.ca

Chief Mark Neufeld, Calgary Police Service
cps@calgarypolice.ca

Chief Dale McFee, Edmonton Police Service
chief@edmontonpolice.ca

Re: The Response to Recent Protests at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary 

As law professors at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary, we want to express our deep concern about the violent infringement of students’ right to protest by the Calgary Police Service, Edmonton Police Service, University of Calgary, and University of Alberta on May 9 and 11, 2024.

Students have a right to protest on Alberta’s university campuses. Their right to protest is protected by sections 2(b) (freedom of expression), 2(c) (freedom of peaceful assembly), 2(d) (freedom of association, and 7 (right to life, liberty, and security of the person) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Where the right to protest of members of marginalized groups is disproportionately impacted, equality rights may also be engaged. Courts have previously held that tents and temporary structures can be forms of expression attracting Canadian Charter protection (see, e.g., Vancouver v Zhang, 2010 BCCA 450; Batty v City of Toronto, 2011 ONSC 6862).

The Universities’ discretion to serve notices of trespass is not unfettered. The Alberta Court of Appeal has clearly ruled that the regulation of freedom of expression by students on university grounds is a form of governmental action subject to the Charter: UAlberta Pro-Life v Governors of the University of Alberta, 2020 ABCA 1. Students who have erected temporary encampments for the purpose of peaceful protest were served trespass notices almost immediately after setting up and without meaningful engagement, severely constraining their right to protest. Arguments that the trespass notices are justified by fire hazards or other safety or operational issues cannot be sustained in light of the fact that the students do not appear to have been given a meaningful opportunity to understand and rectify any such concerns before the notices were served. In the absence of meaningful engagement, discretionary trespass notices and the decision to call in police to enforce such notices are not reasonable and proportionate limits on Charter rights.

These same rights apply vis-à-vis the Calgary and Edmonton Police Services. By enforcing trespass notices that appear to have been based only on the fear of safety risks and potential operational concerns, the Calgary Police Service and Edmonton Police Service likely violated the Charter rights of students. We are further concerned by the excess force and violence with which the Calgary Police Service and Edmonton Police Service cleared the camps. Video evidence suggests that police officers used force that went far beyond that which was necessary to effect law enforcement purposes. Under the Criminal Code, police officers cannot use force unless it is necessary to effect valid law enforcement purposes and cannot use more force than is necessary; to unnecessarily use force or use more force than necessary may constitute criminal assault and is a violation of the protestors’ right to life, liberty, and security of the person under section 7 of the Charter.

Given the foregoing, we call on:

  • The Alberta Crown Prosecution Service to withdraw all charges against individuals arrested at the student encampments;
  • The Calgary and Edmonton Police Services to refer the incidents to ASIRT for investigation, and/or investigate the incidents themselves to determine if disciplinary sanctions and criminal charges are warranted against officers who used disproportionate force against protesters at the student encampments;
  • The Universities of Alberta and Calgary to revoke their trespass notices; rescind any restrictions on students, staff, faculty, or alumni’s ability to come to campus; apologize to their university communities for serving trespass notices on peaceful protesters; reaffirm their commitment to Charter rights; and allow students to peacefully protest in temporary encampments on university grounds;
  • The Universities of Alberta and Calgary to establish policies for campus protests that establish clear and proportionate parameters for serving trespass notices and require meaningful engagement with protest organizers as well as a reasonable opportunity to address safety and other concerns before serving and enforcing trespass notices.

Sincerely yours,

Sanaa Ahmed, Assistant Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Sina Akbari, Assistant Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Sandrine Ampleman-Tremblay, Assistant Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Florence Ashley, Assistant Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Nigel Bankes, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Calgary

Brian Calliou, Assistant Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Stephanie Chipeur, Azrieli Accelerator Professorship in Law & Disability Policy, Faculty of Law & School of Public Policy, University of Calgary

Maureen Duffy, Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Shaun Fluker, Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Robert Hamilton, Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Lorian Hardcastle, Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law

Jennifer Koshan, Professor, Faculty of Law and Research Excellence Chair, University of Calgary

Arlene Kwasniak, Professor Emerita of Law, University of Calgary

Rebeca Macias Gimenez, Assistant Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Hillary Nye, Associate Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Ubaka Ogbogu, Professor and Associate Dean Research, Katz Group Chair in Health Law, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Tamara (Baldhead) Pearl, Assistant Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

Jonnette Watson Hamilton, Professor Emerita of Law, University of Calgary

David Wright, Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law


This post may be cited as: Faculty Members at the University of Alberta and University of Calgary Faculties of Law, “An Open Letter Regarding the Response to Recent Protests at the Universities of Alberta and Calgary” (14 May 2024), online: ABlawg, http://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Blog_Open_Letter_Re_Recent_Protests_Response.pdf

To subscribe to ABlawg by email or RSS feed, please go to http://ablawg.ca

Follow us on Twitter @ABlawg

 

Constitutional Caution, Correction, and Abdication: The Proposed Amendments to the Impact Assessment Act

By: David V. Wright

Matter Commented On: Proposed Amendments to the Federal Impact Assessment Act following Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Constitutional Caution, Correction, and Abdication: The Proposed Amendments to the Impact Assessment Act

Last week, the federal government released proposed amendments (beginning at 557) to the Impact Assessment Act (SC 2019, c 28, s 1) (IAA). These come in the wake of Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (Re IAA), where a 5:2 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) found the federal impact assessment regime unconstitutional in part. This post briefly sets out the legal backdrop for the proposed amendments, discusses key proposed changes, and then concludes with commentary on implications going forward. For detailed commentary on Re IAA, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Overall, this package of proposed amendments represents a constitutionally cautious approach to correcting constitutional problems, including one excessive over-correction where caution is tantamount to abdication (interprovincial effects of greenhouse gas emissions).

Page 9 of 415

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén