(Dis)Proving Racism: A Rebuttal to Klippenstein’s Critical Review of the Law Society of Ontario’s Report on Challenges Facing Racialized Licensees

By: Joshua Sealy-Harrington

PDF Version: (Dis)Proving Racism: A Rebuttal to Klippenstein’s Critical Review of the Law Society of Ontario’s Report on Challenges Facing Racialized Licensees

Document Commented On: Murray Klippenstein, Critical Review of the Challenges Report

On January 8, 2020, Murray Klippenstein published a Critical Review of the Challenges Report (Critical Review). In it, he argues that the Law Society of Ontario’s (LSO’s) March 11, 2014 final report on Challenges Facing Racialized Licensees (Challenges Report) should be rejected because it is “driven by a particular political ideology” and “methodologically invalid” (at 15). And, as Mr. Klippenstein indicates in his Critical Review, his ultimate purpose is undoing LSO initiatives geared towards promoting equality in the legal profession—modest initiatives which, somehow, receive adamant opposition from certain members of the legal profession. Continue reading →

AER Commissioners Grant Summary Dismissal of Applications for Common Carrier and Rateable Take Orders

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: AER Commissioners Grant Summary Dismissal of Applications for Common Carrier and Rateable Take Orders

Decisions Commented On: (1) 2020 ABAER 002, Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. Common Carrier and Rateable Take Order Applications, Applications 1877294 and 1878333, and (2) Re: Proceeding 360 Harvest Operations Ltd., Decision on Motion to Dismiss, Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. Applications 1877294 and 1878333, January 24, 2020

In January 2017 Bearspaw filed applications with the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) seeking common carrier and rateable take orders against Harvest Operations Ltd with respect to gas produced from the Crossfield Basal Quartz C Pool (BQC pool). The matter was originally set down for hearing in September 2018 but was adjourned pending other legal proceedings in which Bearspaw had to establish its rights to produce from its 02/11 well in the BQC pool (so far as I am aware those proceedings are not reported). The current hearing was scheduled to begin January 13, 2020, but on November 14, 2019 Harvest filed a motion asking the AER to dismiss Bearspaw’s applications or adjourn the proceedings. On January 24, 2020 the Commission hearing panel chaired by Cecilia Low granted Harvest’s motion and dismissed the applications. On January 30, 2020 the Commissioners issued a decision cancelling the scheduled hearing; the cancellation decision contains a hyperlink to the Commissioners’ decision on the motion. Continue reading →

Clearing the Air on Teck Frontier (Extended ABlawg Edition)

By: Andrew Leach and Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Clearing the Air on Teck Frontier (Extended ABlawg Edition)

Decision Commented On: Teck Resources Limited, Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project, Fort McMurray Area, 2019 ABAER 008/CEAA Reference No. 65505

A lot of ink is currently being spilled over the federal government’s upcoming decision to approve – or not – Teck Resources’ Frontier oil sands mine project. Premier Jason Kenney and members of his Cabinet insist that the Frontier project is critical to Alberta’s economic prosperity. The Mining Association of Canada’s Pierre Graton stresses that Teck completed a “world-class, independent and rigorous assessment” and that the project was determined to be in the public interest by the joint review panel (JRP) that reviewed it. Environmental groups argue that approval is fundamentally inconsistent with Canada’s climate change commitments. The project is being framed as both a test of Prime Minister Trudeau’s resolve to combat climate change and a referendum on the federal government’s support for Alberta’s economic interests and its commitment to national unity.

Our purpose here is not to take sides but rather to lay out the facts and relevant legal context as clearly as possible so that Albertans and indeed all Canadians can come to their own informed views about the desirability, or not, of this project and what, if any, larger importance to attach to the federal Cabinet’s eventual decision. Continue reading →

Vavilov on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Vavilov on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law

Case Commented On: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII)

In the summer of 2018, I wrote about disagreement within the Supreme Court of Canada over the role of contextual factors in the selection of a standard of review in Canadian administrative law (see The Great Divide on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law). At that time, the Court had arrived at yet another fork in the road on standard of review and stated it would address the matter head-on in a hearing scheduled for late 2018. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII) (Vavilov) is the result of that hearing, and Vavilov has, once again, amended the law applicable to selecting and applying the standard of review. This post is my analysis of Vavilov, and is organized as follows: (1) an overview on the law regarding standard of review up to Vavilov; (2) the law as per Vavilov on selecting the standard of review; (3) the law as per Vavilov on applying the standard of reasonableness; and (4) a short conclusion. I am admittedly somewhat late to this party. My colleague Nigel Bankes has previously written on an aspect of Vavilov here (which I reference below) and I also encourage readers interested in this topic to have a look at Paul Daly’s analysis of Vavilov here. Continue reading →

Are Landlords’ Late Payment Fees Enforceable?

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Are Landlords’ Late Payment Fees Enforceable?

Case Commented On: 19007636 (Re), 2020 ABRTDRS 1 (CanLII)

Are the late payment charges that some leases provide for and some landlords demand from tenants who are late with the rent enforceable? Do they have to be paid? Like many questions about the law, the answer is “it depends.” Are the late payment charges a penalty? If they are, then they are not enforceable. Are the late payment charges a genuine pre-estimate of the landlord’s liquidated damages? If they are, then they are enforceable. I wrote about the distinction between penalties and pre-estimates of liquidated damages in 2017: see When are Late Payment of Rent Charges in Residential Tenancies Unenforceable? Nevertheless, now seems a good time to bring the issue up again for two reasons. First and most importantly, in the last week in January, Alberta’s UCP government changed the payment dates of the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) program and the Income Support program from four business days before a new month to the first day of that new month (or the last business day of the previous month if the first of the month is a holiday or weekend); see AISH and Income Support payment date change. The change takes effect March 1, 2020 although, because March 1 is a Sunday, payments will be mailed or directly deposited on Friday, February 28. With rent due the first of the month for many people, a lot of worry has been expressed about whether landlords will charge for late rent payments. Second, the Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Board (RTDRS), which hears the vast majority of the residential landlord and tenant disputes in this province, just published 19007636 (Re), a written decision that briefly discusses late rent payment charges. The RTDRS has just started making some of its decisions publicly available, and although the ABRTDRS CanLII database only contained 39 decisions as of February 3, it includes a relevant 2020 decision. Continue reading →