EventAction
Alberta Court of Appeal, 4-1, finds the amended federal Impact Assessment Act still unconstitutional in Alberta's reference
On a reference brought by the Government of Alberta, the Alberta Court of Appeal held 4-1 that the Impact Assessment Act as amended after the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling "still infringes on provincial jurisdiction", by letting Ottawa halt projects with even minimal federal effects (The Canadian Press, 2026-10-09); per Ecojustice the majority focused on the definition of "adverse effects within federal jurisdiction" and the decision-making provisions. A reference answer is an advisory opinion. Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin's office said it was "reviewing the decision and considering next steps"; Premier Danielle Smith called it "yet another big win for Alberta" and asked Ottawa to "refrain from yet another appeal" (CP). Ecojustice urged an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (Ecojustice, 2026-10-09). The ruling cuts against the federal review power, not against any project; Bill C-39 would move many reviews to the Canada Energy Regulator but keep the Act.
- Date
- (known to the nearest estimate)
- Kind
- Court ruling
- Where
- Alberta
- Evidence
- Action: Something was done: a law switched on, a tariff imposed, money committed. How evidence is weighed
Sources
- Penticton Herald (The Canadian Press), “Alberta Court of Appeal says Ottawa's Impact Assessment Act is still unconstitutional” (external site), . source record
- Ecojustice, “Carney government urged to appeal decision finding federal impact assessment law unconstitutional” (external site), . source record
- CBC News, “Alberta Court of Appeal says Ottawa's Impact Assessment Act is still unconstitutional” (external site), . excerpt only source record
Laws and agreements
How it bears on the outcome
| Explanation | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| O0 No meaningful speed-up | Neutral weak | An advisory ruling against the federal review power cuts both ways: it may narrow federal hurdles or add legal uncertainty and an appeal; no project is directly affected. |
| O1 Faster, but the extra output goes mostly elsewhere | Neutral weak | The ruling concerns jurisdiction over reviews, not where output goes. |
| O2 Faster, and more volume reaches the US (this level or higher) | Neutral weak | The ruling concerns jurisdiction over reviews, not volume reaching the US. |
| O3 Locked-in preferential terms for the US | Neutral weak | No US preferential terms are involved. |