To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Judicial review — Standard of review — Subordinate legislation

(00:00:41) Summary

(00:06:54) Reasons for Judgment: Côté J. (Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Rowe, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ. concurring)

(00:06:59) I. Overview – 1

(00:10:54) II. Facts – 8

(00:12:00) III. Judicial History – 9

(00:12:02) A. Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, 2021 ABQB 37 – 9

(00:13:27) B. Court of Appeal of Alberta, 2022 ABCA 381 – 11

(00:14:27) IV. Issues – 13

(00:14:43) V. Standard of Review – 14

(00:17:08) VI. Overview of the Off‑Coal Agreement, the MGA and the Linear Guidelines – 19

(00:17:14) A. The Off‑Coal Agreement – 19

(00:18:53) B. The Municipal Government Act – 22

(00:23:08) C. The Linear Guidelines – 30

(00:25:30) VII. Analysis – 37

(00:27:21) A. The Common Law Rule Against Administrative Discrimination – 40

(00:29:39) B. The Linear Guidelines Discriminate Against Parties to Off‑Coal Agreements – 45

(00:32:43) C. The Minister Is Statutorily Authorized To Discriminate Against Parties to Off‑Coal Agreements – 50

(00:35:32) D. The Linear Guidelines Are Consistent With the Scheme and Purposes of the MGA – 55

(00:40:52) VIII. Conclusion – 62