Page 2

Documents Commented on: Mine Financial Security Program Standard [December 2025], AER Manual 024: Guide to the Mine Financial Security Program [February 25, 2025].

PDF Version: Beyond the Pale: The February 2025 Updates to the Mine Financial Security Program

AER Bulletin 2025-06 was posted on February 25, 2025, announcing an updated Manual 024: Guide to the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). The new Manual 024 was preceded by two rounds of updates to the MFSP Standard in October 2024 and December 2024. The MFSP Standard sets out the rules for the MFSP and is incorporated by reference into the Conservation and Reclamation Regulation, Alta Reg 115/1993 (s 16.1). The Manual is intended to assist mine owners in their understanding of its various requirements. The changes to the MFSP made by the updates to the Standard and the Manual are not entirely trivial, but they repair only the more blatant and marginal deficiencies with the MFSP; the overall financial unsoundness of the MFSP – and its counterproductive asset to liability approach in particular – has been left intact. The Guide also remains replete with out-dated references that betray a troubling lack of professionalism and due regard for the public and relevant stakeholders, including downstream Indigenous peoples.

Narrow Interpretations v Commercial Realities: Striking the Right Balance in Poonian

By Jassmine Girgis

On March 17, 2025

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: Henderson v Peerani, 2024 ABCA 370 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Narrow Interpretations v Commercial Realities: Striking the Right Balance in Poonian

In the recent case of Poonian v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2024 SCC 28 (CanLII) (Poonian), the Supreme Court of Canada clarified s 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA), the false pretence and fraudulent misrepresentation exception to bankruptcy discharge. Henderson v Peerani, 2024 ABCA 370 (CanLII), is one of the first cases to deal with the same exception after Poonian.

Teaching Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation

By Robert Hamilton

On March 13, 2025

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Statutory Interpretation, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Robert Hamilton, Jennifer Koshan, and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Commented On: Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Teaching Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation

It has been a year since the Supreme Court of Canada released its landmark decision in Dickson v Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, 2024 SCC 10 (CanLII), and many of us are still grappling with how to include Dickson in our teaching materials. For those teaching international law, or the interplay between Canadian law, Indigenous law, and international law, this previous post might be a useful summary of Dickson’s commentary (or lack thereof) on the legal significance of Canada’s adoption and implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In this post, we deal with another important issue – whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in the context of modern treaties, or at least in the context of the treaty and surrounding documents that governed the dispute between Cindy Dickson and the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation (VGFN). We provide a summary and critique of the judgments of the Supreme Court on this issue, which concern the interpretation and application of section 32(1) of the Charter in light of constitutional text, history, and precedents as applied to the facts at hand. The majority judgment of Justices Nicolas Kasirer and Mahmud Jamal provide an excellent summary of previous jurisprudence on section 32(1) and could replace a swath of case law on the constitutional law syllabus. But the concurring judgment of Justices Sheilah Martin and Michelle O’Bonsawin, and the dissenting judgment of Justice Malcolm Rowe, are also worthy of discussion given their insights on the complexities of debates surrounding the issue of Charter application. We hope that this summary of the various judgments and our commentary on those judgments will be helpful for those teaching constitutional law and adjacent subjects. We also plan to write a second post focusing on the section 15(1) and section 25 Charter issues in Dickson.

Anticipatory Obedience and Essential Infrastructure at the Alberta-US Border

By Shaun Fluker

On March 10, 2025

In Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, Terrorism and Security

By: Shaun Fluker

Legislation commented on: Order in Council 008/2025 (January 29, 2025) amending the Critical Infrastructure Defence Regulation, Alta Reg 169/2021

PDF Version: Anticipatory Obedience and Essential Infrastructure at the Alberta-US Border

The authoritarian and isolationist Trump administration has profoundly altered global relations. Democratic institutions are under attack in the United States, and it seems that the grand post-WWII global project called liberal democracy finally ran out of steam on November 5, 2024. If a new world order is emerging, Canada is on the front line. This is an uncomfortable position for us, not only because our socio-economic systems are so deeply integrated with the United States, but also because the world is watching how America’s closest ally responds to the chaos. The stakes are exceedingly high. Here in Alberta, the UCP cabinet initially responded to the Trump administration with what Timothy Synder calls ‘anticipatory obedience’ in his must-read book On Tyranny. Show a bully what they can extract from you, and they will take it. Plenty has been written about the Premier’s visit to Mar-a-Lago and Alberta’s initial reluctance to align with ‘Team Canada’, my focus here is on something that has not garnered as much attention: the Lieutenant Governor in Council designating all land within two kilometres of the US border as ‘essential infrastructure’. It is truly shocking how quickly the UCP cabinet gave away Alberta’s portion of the world’s longest undefended border, and created a quasi-military area now referred to as the red zone.

I Do Solemnly [thumbs-up]: The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Endorses the Use of Emojis as Contractual Signatures (and the Decision is Kinda [meh])

By Michael Ilg

On March 3, 2025

In Contracts

By: Michael Ilg

Case Commented On: Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. v South West Terminal Ltd., 2024 SKCA 115 (CanLII)

PDF Version: I Do Solemnly : The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Endorses the Use of Emojis as Contractual Signatures (and the Decision is Kinda )

The most famous emoji in the history of Western Canadian grain contracts has been in the news again, though with much less fanfare than the first time. The trial court decision starring , South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land, 2023 SKKB 116 (CanLII) (Achter), garnered international media attention (see here, here, and here) with the novel story of the farmer found liable for a contract entered into by emoji. The recent appellate court decision in Achter Land & Cattle Ltd. v South West Terminal Ltd., 2024 SKCA 115 (CanLII) (Achter II), in comparison, received only a smattering of media coverage (see here and here). Perhaps appellate court endorsements of trial decisions are less newsworthy in general; or perhaps ’s fading popularity can be attributed to Gen Z, who are said to find passive aggressive, hurtful, or even hostile. Though ‘s fifteen minutes of fame may be drawing to a close, its legal legacy may persist for years to come, and not necessarily for the good.