Embargo would have immediate negative consequences for BC’s treasury and residents

Environmental Law - Constitutional Issues - General Principles

Alberta adopted Preserving Canada’s Economic Prosperity Act (Act) (Alta.) which empowered Minister of Energy of Alberta to require anyone who wished to export natural gas, crude oil or refined fuels from Alberta to obtain licence. Minister was to consider in requirements for license whether adequate pipeline capacity existed to maximize return on crude oil and diluted bitumen produced in Alberta. British Columbia claimed Act regulated interprovincial commerce, which is federal jurisdiction. Alberta brought motion to strike proceedings, BC brought motion for interlocutory injunction preventing Minister from exercising powers under Act. Alberta’s motion dismissed, BC’s motion granted. Whether Act overstepped provincial jurisdiction was serious issue for trial. Pith and substance of legislation was oil exports and was not limited to primary production, and fell under Parliament’s jurisdiction over interprovincial commerce pursuant to s. 91(2) of Constitution Act, 1867. Act authorized discrimination between provinces. Act sought to limit exportation of petroleum products from Alberta and was only ever contemplated in relation to BC. Minister was enabled, in transparent manner, to stop exports on basis of opinion as to progress of specific pipeline project. Harm to BC would be irreparable and it would be difficult to recover damages. Harm alleged by BC was sufficient to ground interlocutory injunction, even though its realization ultimately depended on Alberta’s will. Embargo on exports to BC would cause considerable increase in price of gasoline and diesel in that province, and could lead to fuel shortages which could, in turn, endanger public safety. Embargo would have immediate negative consequences for BC’s treasury and residents, and it would be impossible to quickly obtain sufficient quantities of fuels from other sources. Balance of convenience favoured granting injunction. Alberta was unable to show public interest of Act. Given strength of BC’s case, little weight given to inconvenience to Alberta in not being able to implement oil embargo.

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Alberta (Attorney General) (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 4908, 2019 CarswellNat 4909, 2019 FC 1195, 2019 CF 1195, Sébastien Grammond J. (F.C.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

The tale of Umar Zameer's two trials – the criminal court and the court of public opinion

Court of Appeal clarifies how tort of abuse of process interacts with criminal proceedings

Mariam Moktar elected second vice-president of the Ontario Bar Association

Ontario Superior Court grants plaintiff's motion to add new defendant in slip and fall case

Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses First Nations' appeal over environmental regulation changes

LSO bencher Murray Klippenstein given "substantial indemnity" costs in suit against legal regulator

Most Read Articles

LSO bencher Murray Klippenstein given "substantial indemnity" costs in suit against legal regulator

The tale of Umar Zameer's two trials – the criminal court and the court of public opinion

Ontario Superior Court finds plaintiff contributorily negligent in slip and fall case

Court of Appeal clarifies how tort of abuse of process interacts with criminal proceedings