Ecojustice loses attempt to halt anti-alberta inquiry

An Alberta court has rejected an attempt by Ecojustice, a Vancouver- based environmental charity, to halt the anti- Alberta energy inquiry until a judge can determine the legality of the investigation — a question that remains undecided by the courts.

Ecojustice had asked for the injunction in mid- July. A hearing had been scheduled for April 2020, but has been on hold because of the COVID- 19 pandemic. In court documents filed seeking the injunction, Ecojustice had argued they risked harm to their reputation should the inquiry release information, and that the activities of the inquiry itself might “in the end turn out to be void ab initio.”

The inquiry, headed by Steve Allan, a Calgary forensic accountant, was announced in July 2019, to investigate allegations that environmental campaigns against Alberta’s oil and gas sector were being funded by foreign interest groups. Its premise has been long challenged by critics, but according to The Canadian Press, Ecojustice was the first to challenge the legality of the inquiry.

The lawsuit was launched in November 2019.

“The inquiry has been called not to address a matter of pressing public interest, but to justify a predetermined intent to harm the reputations, economic viability and freedom of expression of certain organizations,” says the initial lawsuit.

Late last week, Justice Karen Horner declined to bar the inquiry from continuing its activities. Devon Page, the executive director of Ecojustice, said the reason for the injunction application was that the hearing was adjourned because of COVID-19.

“It’s kind of a procedural step that’s now meaningless and we just move to trial,” said Page.

He said the lawsuit — and the injunction — matter to groups beyond Ecojustice, indeed to many other environmental organizations.

“For us to get a judgment that says, ‘ We don’t need to worry,’ that’s not going to cut it,” he said.

In particular, Ecojustice had argued in its July injunction application that there had been no procedural terms set out or ways in which those caught up in the inquiry might respond to allegations against them.

But in an Oct. 2 legal filing, the inquiry did, in fact, file this information with the court, Horner says. This information had been posted on the inquiry’s website in mid-september.

“These documents largely address the one ground noted above that Ecojustice relied on in bringing its injunction application,” Horner wrote.

Further, there’s a threepart legal test set out for whether or not a court should grant an injunction. The first is that the issue is serious in nature. Horner wrote, “the allegations are of a serious nature and are neither vexatious nor frivolous.”

The second is that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction isn’t granted. Ecojustice argues that any release of information by the inquiry would damage its reputation. The government responded that there’s no risk of imminent release, and so any expectation of harm is speculation. Horner was less sympathetic toward Ecojustice on this issue, writing its concerns are “purely speculative at this juncture.”

While that was enough to dismiss the application, Horner also weighed the balance of convenience: which party would be harmed most by an injunction. Ecojustice argued the injunction should be granted because it faces scrutiny from an inquiry the court might shut down.

The inquiry responded that there’s a “strong public interest” in the “orderly, uninterrupted and timely progression of the Inquiry” and argued the court should defer to the wishes of the legislature that set up the inquiry.

The court agreed.

For us to get a judgment that says, ‘We don’t need to worry,’ that’s not going to cut it.