Open Access: A Request to the Alberta Court of Appeal

By: Admin

PDF Version: Open Access: A Request to the Alberta Court of Appeal

Matter Commented On: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (Alberta)

There is considerable public interest in questions as to the validity of the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, SC 2018, c 12, s 186 (GGPPA) and the References that have been made to different provincial Courts of Appeal. We now have judgments rendered by both the Saskatchewan and Ontario Courts of Appeal upholding the federal government’s GHG pricing regime: Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2019 SKCA 40 (CanLII) and Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2019 ONCA 544 (CanLII). Appeals are pending in each of these cases. Continue reading →

The Bill 12 “Turn off the Taps” Litigation: Justice Hall Orders a Stay in BC’s Action

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Bill 12 “Turn off the Taps” Litigation: Justice Hall Orders a Stay in BC’s Action

Case Commented On: British Columbia (Attorney General) v Alberta (Attorney General), 2019 ABQB 550

This decision concerns Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act, SA 2018, c P-21.5 also known as the “Turn Off the Taps” legislation. I commented on Bill 12 here and commented on the decision of the Kenney Government to bring this legislation into force here. The decision to bring the legislation into force prompted the Attorney General of British Columbia (AGBC) to renew its application to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to have the legislation declared unconstitutional. The Attorney General Alberta (AGAB) responded by bringing an application to strike BC’s application on the basis that the AGBC had no standing to sue for a declaration as to the constitutional invalidity of Alberta legislation. This is Justice Robert Hall’s decision on that application. Continue reading →

Material and Cultural Causes of Delay

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Material and Cultural Causes of Delay

Case Commented On: R v King, 2019 ABQB 467

This is the seventh instalment in my long-running series of blog posts covering Alberta decisions dealing with the fallout of R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, released almost three years ago. This post starts with a discussion of the recent R v King, 2019 ABQB 467, which covers one of the two live issues about Jordan that will be going up before the SCC: whether or not the time between when an application or case is heard and when it is decided (often called ‘judicial delay’; I will refer to it as ‘judicial decision-making time’) is excluded from the delay calculation. This issue will be before the Supreme Court as part of R v KGK, 2019 MBCA 9, on September 25, 2019. (The second issue is how the timelines apply to minors, an issue in the appeal of R v KJM, 2018 ABCA 278, which the SCC heard in February 2019). The second part of the blog post discusses some longer-term impacts of Jordan, and some of the limitations of the decision. Continue reading →

Carbon Security or Carbon Whimsy?

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Carbon Security or Carbon Whimsy?

Document commented on: Alberta’s Proposed Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction System: Discussion Document, July 2019

This Discussion Document contains the Government of Alberta’s proposal to replace the current Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation, Alta Reg 255/2017, (CCIR) with a Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) system for Alberta’s large final emitters (LFEs). If promulgated, the TIER system will effectively return us to the model of the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation, Alta Reg 139/2007 (SGER) first introduced by the Stelmach government in 2007, and then repealed and replaced by the Notley government’s CCIR effective January 1, 2018. Both the SGER and the CCIR are greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation measures; both are emissions intensity schemes rather than cap and trade schemes; both require increased carbon efficiency over time (i.e. reduced carbon emissions per unit of output); both schemes offer covered entities access to flexibility mechanisms (including payments into a fund) to allow them to meet their targets in the most efficient manner; both impose a liability only on excess emissions over the target rather than on all emissions but still provide a pricing signal; both are designed to protect trade exposed sectors; and both focus on LFEs. Continue reading →

Boulachanis v Canada: Transgender Inmate Moved to Women’s Prison

By: Amy Matychuk

PDF Version: Boulachanis v Canada: Transgender Inmate Moved to Women’s Prison

Case Commented On: Boulachanis v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 456 (CanLII)

In Boulachanis v Canada, Justice Sébastien Grammond of the Federal Court granted Jamie Boulachanis’ application for an interlocutory injunction ordering that she be transferred to a women’s prison. Ms. Boulachanis, who is a transgender woman, initially made a transfer request to Correctional Service Canada (CSC) and was denied. She applied for judicial review of the decision denying the transfer. While waiting for resolution of her judicial review application, she was moved to administrative segregation due to threats to her safety from other (male) inmates. Accordingly, she successfully applied for an interlocutory injunction and an order that she be moved to a women’s prison immediately.

Justice Grammond’s decision discusses Ms. Boulachanis’ history, the rights of transgender people in a correctional environment, and the tripartite test for an interlocutory injunction. He found, “the refusal to transfer Ms. Boulachanis to a women’s institution constitutes prima facie discrimination based on gender identity or expression” (at para 3). Justice Grammond’s decision is an important victory for the rights of transgender inmates, who face unique roadblocks and safety risks and who must contend with persistent myths and misinformation about their gender identities and expressions. Continue reading →