Journal Cover
University of New Brunswick Law Journal
Number of Followers: 2  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 0077-8141
Published by U of New Brunswick Homepage  [4 journals]
  • Editor's Preface

    • Authors: Adrian Forsythe, Colleen Thrasher
      Pages: 1 - 1
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • 1.5 to Stay Alive

    • Authors: Elizabeth May
      Pages: 3 - 3
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • Project d'agrandissement du réseau de trans mountain

    • Authors: Malaïka Bacon-Dussault, Amélie Frenette
      Pages: 13 - 13
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • The Unwritten Constitutional Principle of Ecological Sustainability

    • Authors: Lynda Collins
      Pages: 30 - 30
      Abstract: This Article explores whether recognizing an obligation of ecological sustainability as an unwritten constitutional principle (UCP) would assist government decision-makers and courts in addressing the many competing imperatives raised by the problem of petroleum pipelines. I argue that if the rule of law is the foundation of our society, then ecological sustainability is the bedrock on which it stands. Moreover, an ecological UCP would assist courts hearing pipeline-related disputes in interpreting environmental legislation, supervising the discretionary decisions of environmental regulators, adjudicating environmental claims under the Charter, and/or determining environmental powers under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. In particular, the UCP of ecological sustainability strongly militates in favour of upholding environmental legislation where there is even a slight jurisdictional toe-hold for the relevant level of government. The Article will also contrast how a sustainability analysis of pipelines differs from one grounded in the right to a healthy environment – the other major avenue for constitutional environmental protection. The Article concludes that while the right to a healthy environment arguably does not clearly resolve the pipeline puzzle (since such a right could equally be violated by alternative methods of transporting petroleum products, notably train transport), an unwritten constitutional principle of ecological sustainability points clearly to the need to divest from fossil fuel infrastructure and aggressively invest in renewables.
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • Implementation & Governance Challenges in Canada Respecting UNDRIP
           Article 31

    • Authors: Daniel Dylan
      Pages: 61 - 61
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • Bill C-69 and the Offshore

    • Authors: Stephanie Hickman, Todd Stanley, Thomas Munn
      Pages: 88 - 88
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • Environmental Protection Under the Fisheries Act and Bill C-68

    • Authors: James Johnson
      Pages: 104 - 104
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • The Crude Politics of Carbon Pricing, Pipelines, and Environmental

    • Authors: Jason MacLean
      Pages: 128 - 128
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • Négocier de Bonne Foi

    • Authors: Geneviève Motard, Benjamin Chartrand
      Pages: 172 - 172
      Abstract: En novembre 2018, à la suite d’un changement de gouvernement, la société d’État Hydro-Québec a obtenu le mandat de « trouver des solutions » afin de se retirer d’un projet de développement éolien qui devait être mené en partenariat avec la Nation innue, en vertu d’un contrat d’attribution d’un bloc énergétique qui avait été conclu de gré à gré. Comme le contrat d’achat d’énergie n’avait pas encore été formellement entériné, les principaux acteurs politiques ont largement véhiculé le message qu’aucune obligation légale ne les liait aux Innus. À partir de ce cas d’espèce, les auteurs proposent une réflexion sur la portée des obligations qui découlent du principe constitutionnel de l’honneur de la Couronne dans le cours des négociations qui doivent mener à la conclusion d’ententes de nature socio-économique ou commerciale avec des peuples autochtones.
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • Privatizing Uncertainty and Socializing Risk

    • Authors: Shiri Pasternak, Nicole Schabus
      Pages: 208 - 208
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • If There Can Only Be “One Law”, it Must be Treaty Law.

    • Authors: Dayna Nadine Scott, Andrée Boisselle
      Pages: 230 - 230
      Abstract: The paper stems from a research collaboration with the Anishini or Oji-Cree community of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI), known as the people of Big Trout Lake in the far north of Ontario. In the face of renewed threats of encroachment by extractive industries onto their homelands, the community leadership invited our research team to visit in 2017. The community was engaged in strategic planning and reflection on the work that they have done in recent years to articulate and record their own laws for the territory, and to gain recognition for those laws from settler governments. Between 2008 and 2018, the community drafted a Declaration of Sovereignty, a Governance Framework, a Watershed Declaration, and a Consultation Protocol, amongst other “operational documents” describing their Indigenous legal order. This period of community-led legal drafting was stimulated by a dispute between the community and a mining company, Platinex, that culminated in 2008 with the jailing of the Chief, four members of Council, and another community member who became known as the “KI6”. Despite community members describing their obligation to protect the land drawn from the key legal concept of Kanawayandan D’aaki, roughly translated as “keeping my land”, the KI6 were convicted of contempt of court for disobeying a court order to provide Platinex with access for its drilling program. The courts’ message to the community in 2008 was essentially that only “one law” could govern the land; the application of settler law on KI lands could not accommodate the community members’ obligations under Indigenous law. In our collaboration, community members expressed an interest in exploring the question of whether the process of writing down their laws would assist the community in any future encounters with the Canadian legal system in disputes over resource extraction. In this paper, we draw on the transcripts from workshops conducted in KI in 2017 to share insights into the motivations of the community in articulating their laws, and we explore the question of how to reinvigorate historic treaty interpretations so as to produce “one law” inclusive of Indigenous legal orders. We conclude that if there can be only “one law” on treaty territory, it must be a renewed and reinvigorated treaty law. We draw on principles and mechanisms from the modern treaty context, and positions emanating from the communities in recent regional negotiations, to explore how pressing decisions on the use of the land and resources could be made differently in Treaty 9 territory. In our vision, in situations where settler law says “yes” and Indigenous law says “no” to a resource extraction project, treaty law must provide a principled framework for moving forward.
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • Easements, Errors, and Energy Projects

    • Authors: Jane Thomson
      Pages: 282 - 282
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • The Supreme Court's Strange Brew

    • Authors: Kerri Froc, Michael Marin
      Pages: 297 - 297
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
  • The Utility of Public Law and Private Law in Incorporating the Voice of
           the Child in Family Law Proceedings

    • Authors: Joshua Haase
      Pages: 333 - 333
      PubDate: 2020-03-02
      Issue No: Vol. 70 (2020)
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

Your IP address:
Home (Search)
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-