![]() |
Toll Free: 1-877-727-6978 Phone: 1-250-727-6978 Fax: 1-250-727-6699 Email: info@quickscribe.bc.ca Website: www.quickscribe.bc.ca |
|
|
Vol: IX – Issue: XI – November 2016 | |
|
ENVIROFOR NEWS: Tip: Log in to EnviroFor Online prior to clicking Reporter links. |
||
|
||
View PDF of this Reporter. |
||
|
||
FEDERAL
LEGISLATION — For notification of federal amendments, we
recommend you use our Section
Tracking ![]() |
||
|
||
[ Previous Reporters ] |
ENERGY AND MINES NEWS | ||
Three Legal Pitfalls for Trans Mountain to Avoid the Fate of Northern Gateway Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline may have gotten the nod from Ottawa. But proponents would be wise to draw some legal lessons from the dismissal of Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway Project. In May 2016, the National Energy Board reported seven court challenges to the Trans Mountain project from environmental groups, municipalities and indigenous communities. The Trans Mountain project may affect different communities and landscapes than Northern Gateway but it is hardly immune to threats that ultimately killed the Enbridge proposal. For starters, the Northern Gateway project was halted due to an improper use of an equivalency agreement between the Government of British Columbia and the National Energy Board. In its decision, the BC Supreme Court held that while the province could rely on a federal environmental assessment, it still had to issue its' own Environmental Assessment Certificate. As Roy Millen, Sandy Carpenter and Peter Hogg pointed out at the time, the court effectively was telling the B.C. government that it could impose its own conditions: Read the full article by Supriya Tandan and published in the CBA National. Energy Battle Heating up: FortisBC Complains
as [Vancouver] Phases out Fossil Fuels Legal Challenges Will Not Prevent Kinder Morgan
from |
||
ENERGY AND MINES | ||
Act or Regulation Affected | Effective Date | Amendment Information |
Administrative Penalties Regulation (35/2011) | Nov. 7/16 | by Reg 267/2016 |
Oil and Gas Activities Act | Nov. 28/16 | by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 333 only (in force by Reg 216/2015), Societies Act |
Petroleum and Natural Gas Drilling Licence and Lease Regulation (10/82) | Nov. 7/16 | by Reg 268/2016 |
FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENT NEWS | ||
Forest and Environment News: This past summer the Forest Appeals Commission (FAC) released its decision in the appeal of Interfor Corporation v. Government of British Columbia. The appeal considered a contravention determination under the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) that the appellant did not achieve the intended results specified in its forest stewardship plan (FSP) in relation to visual quality objectives (VQO), contrary to Section 21(1) of FRPA. The case is interesting from a legal perspective given the almost impossibly subjective standards the FAC was called upon to apply in order to dispose of the appeal. At issue was whether the appellant achieved a VQO of partial retention after completion of its harvesting activities in a particular cutblock (as required in the FSP), or whether the appellant, instead, achieved a VQO of modification. Without getting bogged down in the legislative linkages, the requirements of the various categories of VQOs for altered forest landscapes are defined in Section 1.1 of the Forest Planning and Practices Regulation (FPPR) from the lowest degree of alteration preservation) through to the highest (maximum modification). In between these two poles exist retention, partial retention, and modification. In large measure, these VQOs are defined in terms of scale within the altered forest landscape, and in terms of visibility. So, already, one might suggest that a problem exists insofar as scale and visibility are closely linked. In this respect, the FAC determined that visibility is assessed with reference to human perception (literally, an eyeball test) and scale is, instead, assessed relative to the landscape. Read the full article by Jeff Waatainen of DLA Piper and published in the latest November-December issue of the BC Professional Forest Magazine. Fisheries Act to be Replaced January 1st
Will Climate Litigation Come to Canada? The following Environmental Appeal Board decisions were released in the month of November:
|
||
FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENT | ||
Act or Regulation Affected | Effective Date | Amendment Information |
Administrative Penalties Regulation (Environmental Management Act) (133/2014) | Nov. 1/16 | by Reg 218/2016 |
First Nation Tenures Regulation | Nov. 28/16 | by Reg 211/2016 |
Forest Act | Nov. 28/16 | by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, sections 309 and 310 only (in force by Reg 216/2015), Societies Act |
Hunting Regulation (190/84) | Nov. 10/16 | by Reg 270/2016 |
Motor Vehicle Prohibition Regulation (196/99) | Nov. 10/16 | by Reg 270/2016 |
Park, Conservancy and Recreation Area Regulation (180/90) | Nov. 28/16 | by Reg 211/2016 |
Range Regulation (116/2004) | Nov. 28/16 | by Reg 211/2016 |
Sole Proponent Fees Regulation (224/2013) | Nov. 7/16 | by Reg 264/2016 |
Solid Fuel Burning Domestic Appliance Regulation (218/2016) (replaces B.C. Reg. 302/94) |
NEW
Nov. 1/16
|
see Reg 218/2016 |
Solid Fuel Burning Domestic Appliance Regulation (302/94) |
REPEALED
Nov. 1/16
|
by Reg 218/2016 |
Transfer Regulation (351/2004) | Nov. 28/16 | by Reg 211/2016 |
Weed Control Act | Nov. 28/16 | by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 362 only (in force by Reg 216/2015), Societies Act |
Wildlife Act | Nov. 28/16 | by 2015 Bill 24, c. 18, section 363 only (in force by Reg 216/2015), Societies Act |
Wildlife Management Areas Regulation (12/2015) | Nov. 16/16 | by Reg 272/2016 |
The
content of this document is intended for client use only.
Redistribution to anyone other than Quickscribe clients (without the prior written consent of Quickscribe) is strictly prohibited. QUICKSCRIBE SERVICES LTD. UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS EMAIL SERVICE To unsubscribe from this service, click here. |