Jurisdictional Uncertainty and Pipelines: Is a Judicial Solution Possible
AbstractThis article addresses the problem of jurisdictional uncertainty over pipelines. Some commentators have suggested that Judicial interpretations of s. 92(10)(a) of the Canadian Constitution, the federal works and undertakings power, are inadequate and have proven unworkable. The author outlines these deficiencies, but maintains that the existing legal tests can be reformulated to provide greater jurisdictional certainty. The key, the author maintains, is to acknowledge the conceptual distinction between works and undertakings. Then, for each case a two-step analysis is proposed, in which the court must first identify the work or undertaking in question and then classify it as intraprovincial or extraprovincial. The implications of this new model are then explored in the practical context of the NOVA pipeline system.
Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
- Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
- Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
- Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.
To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.