DAY 1

Opening Remarks and Presentation of the Kaiser Energy Bison Award

On May 4 and 5, 2026, Energy Regulation Quarterly hosted the annual Energy Law Forum (“ELF”) meeting in Montreal. The Forum opened with the presentation of the annual prize, the Kaiser Energy Bison Award 2026. This year, the award went to Timothy Egan, a lawyer by profession and a leading figure in energy governance, and until very recently, the President and CEO of the Canadian Gas Association (“CGA”), a position he held for more than ten years.

In his acceptance speech, Tim looked back on the genesis of the Energy Regulation Quarterly (“ERQ”). The need, he explained, was clear: a forum was required where regulatory decisions could be examined, criticized and debated. That need was the founding idea behind the journal, and thus the ERQ was born, the product of a partnership between the CGA and Electricity Canada (“EC”). However, one major question remained: how to establish the journal’s credibility from the outset? The answer took the form of a prestigious co-editorship, already well known in energy and regulatory circles with two highly respected former regulators, the late Gordon Edward Kaiser and Rowland Harrison. Tim did not fail to recount the story behind the award’s name. Before the pandemic, it was traditionally called the “Energy Bear”. However, Gordon’s passing provided an opportunity to pay tribute to the builder he was: no longer a bear, but a bison “in his honour, as he was”.

The next speaker was Canadian pollster and data scientist Nik Nanos of Nanos Research. Nanos painted a portrait of Canadian public opinion on energy and of the country’s political climate, which he organized around two main themes: energy rethought and the advancement of major projects, followed by the economic and political mood. Nanos presented various polls showing the current and changing mood of Canadians with respect to various issues facing the public. Overall, he concluded that while Canadians remain anxious about their bills, they are currently nonetheless giving the government the benefit of the doubt.

DAY 2

Panel 1: Administrative Law in 2025: The Year in Review

Professor Paul Daly, of the University of Ottawa, delivered his now eagerly awaited overview of the past year’s developments in administrative law, an exercise he also publishes annually, in a more extensive form, in the ERQ.^[1] The main theme of his review is the continuing expansion of the “Vavilov domain” (as he likes to call it) and of its culture of justification, according to which the legitimacy of a public decision rests on the reasons that support it, and not on the mere assertion of a power through its exercise. As such, Professor Daly reviewed the cases that address the question of “how far must a regulator go in giving reasons for its decisions?” Another area Professor Daly canvassed was the court’s treatment of statutory interpretation by regulatory agencies, especially with what he called the “open texture” of language where words in a statute can never anticipate in advance all the situations to which one might want to apply them. Related to this question is the role of precedents as a constraint on a decision-maker, something Professor Daly elaborated on with an example from a recent Supreme Court judgment.

Another area that continues to occupy regulatory lawyers’ minds is the overlap between appeals and judicial review. Similarly, the issues of procedural fairness, bias, and the independence of decision-makers occupied a good amount of time in Professor Daly’s review of the caselaw. Daly closed by flagging a few upcoming cases to follow closely. These cases will address fundamental questions such as: (1) whether a government, by statute, can prevent the courts from reviewing an administrative decision?; (2) how should a court review a decision that rests mainly on facts?; (3) when can a Quebec court review an administrative decision and with what degree of deference?; and (4) when an administrative decision engages a value protected by the Charter, such as freedom of expression, how rigorously must the courts verify that this value has indeed been respected?

Panel 2: The Consumer’s Perspective on Canada’s Energy Moment

Pollster Greg Lyle, founder and president of Innovative Research Group, presented his findings about consumer sentiments in Canada, especially with respect to energy issues. Mr. Lyle addressed several issues such as energy affordability and the cost of living. Using Atlantic Canada as an instructive example, Mr. Lyle discussed the role of process, social license, energy security, renewable energy, data centres, and public anxiety over world politics in shaping future energy policies.

Panel 3: Energy Law Issues Facing Regulators, from the Hearing to the Enforcement of Decisions

Mr. Lyle’s discussion fed into the next panel which brought together Scott MacKenzie, KC, Professor Mark Mancini and David Morton. The theme was the independence of energy regulators, that quality so readily invoked, but which is measured above all in practice, in the hearing room, and once the decision has been rendered. David Morton, former Chair of the B.C. Utilities Commission, gave his perspective on regulatory independence from an international, comparative angle. A credible regulator, he recalled, rests everywhere on the same conditions: stable funding, transparency, accountability and is, above all, largely free from any political interference, something that remains to this day the foundation of a regulator’s legitimacy. Scott MacKenzie, KC, the former Chair of Prince Edward Island’s Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (“IRAC”), also addressed the question from a Canadian perspective. He noted how various changes to the governance structure of regulatory agencies, such as shorter terms for decision makers, as well as external political pressures can sometimes challenge regulatory independence.

Professor of law, Mark Mancini addressed how judicial review allows courts to verify the legality of administrative decisions. The upcoming Supreme Court case of Democracy Watch^[2] should provide an answer to the question of: can the legislature close off judicial review of questions of law to the courts and, if so, how far?

Panel 4: Regulatory Decision-Making in the Face of New Challenges

The next panel brought together Doug Slater, vice president of Indigenous relations and regulatory affairs at FortisBC and John Vellone, national lead partner of the Energy, Resources and Renewables group at the law firm BLG. The panel addressed two themes that regulators are grappling with today: (1) resilience, which has become a new challenge at the heart of regulators’ mandate; and (2) innovation. Mr. Slater used the 2018 rupture of a major British Columbia gas pipeline to explain why resilience is now central to utility planning and discussed the regulatory process, analysis, and planning framework needed to support investments to address energy system resiliency.

John Vellone discussed the question of how innovation and regulation can intersect and overlap, especially since modern regulators’ mandates have been broadened to include an objective to facilitate innovation. Mr. Vellone discussed initiatives such as regulatory sandboxes, host pilot projects, and small-scale trials that allow the feasibility, timelines, costs, and risks of innovations to be tested.

Panel 5: The review of major projects

The final panel brought together Professor of Law Gerard Kennedy, Mark Watton, Lead Commissioner at the Canada Energy Regulator, and Terence Hubbard, President of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. The discussion focused on how major projects are approved in Canada and on the federal government’s recent desire to speed up their delivery, in particular through the new Building Canada Act^[3] and designations of projects in the national interest.

Professor Kennedy laid the groundwork: the federal government may make laws for “the peace, order and good government of Canada”^[4]. Yet, to prevent the federal government from being able to regulate everything, case law has framed this power, the most important strand of which is the “national concern” doctrine.^[5] Kennedy emphasized that “national interest” is not a constitutionally defined term, is context-dependent and cannot be used simply to bypass provincial authority. Even if the Act is valid generally, each project designation must itself fall within federal jurisdiction and respect constitutional limits, including Indigenous rights.

Mark Watton explained how the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) works today and how the new Act^[6] could change things. The projects the CER deals with most are oil and gas pipelines, have always been a politically sensitive subject as they touch many interests. Today, a proponent files an application, and depending on the size of the project, the Regulator may send cabinet a report recommending the project, or not, in the public interest, supported by conditions. The Act^[7] lists the factors to be considered, including economic viability, effects on Indigenous peoples, environmental issues, the proponent’s capacity, and social and economic factors.

Terence Hubbard, for his part, addressed how his agency revised its framework in the spring of 2024 and tightened its decision-making. Whereas only one cooperation agreement had been concluded in ten years, it now has seven with the provinces, with another one nearly finalized with Newfoundland and Labrador, and discussions under way with Saskatchewan and Quebec. The agency can also rely on the new Major Projects Office that can designate projects in the national interest and coordinate regulatory work, while staying within federal jurisdiction and without encroaching on provincial decisions. Mr. Hubbard did stress, however, that given that Indigenous consultation is provided for by statute^[8] and flows from the Constitution^[9], no framework can dispense with it.

CONCLUSION

If one lesson emerges from these two days, it is that energy law now evolves at the pace of the country’s political and economic news. The questions raised by the speakers, far from being settled, will only grow in importance between now and the next edition of the Energy Law Forum, where we hope to see readers and practitioners in great numbers. In the meantime, it is in the pages of the ERQ that these stories will continue to be written, and the ELF invites you to stay tuned for upcoming issues of Energy Regulation Quarterly. 

•  

  * Mohammed El Mendri (B.A., J.D., LL.L.) completed his articling term with Legal Aid Ontario, concurrently in family law, at the duty counsel office of the Superior Court of Justice in Cornwall, and in refugee law in Ottawa. These two experiences anchored his commitment to access to justice. Now an associate lawyer at the firm PNL Advocacy, he also acts as legal research counsel at the Canadian Gas Association, where he contributes to the publication of Energy Regulation Quarterly, as well as to internal mandates related to energy law. His interests focus on public law, administrative law, litigation, and contemporary questions of institutional governance and minority protection.

  ¹ See Paul Daly, “2025 Developments in Administrative Law Relevant to Energy Law and Regulation” (2026) 14:1 Energy Regulation Q.

• ² Democracy Watch v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 158, leave to appeal to SCC granted, 41576 (16 May 2025).

• ³ Building Canada Act, SC 2025, c 2.

• ⁴ Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, s 91, reprinted in RSC 1985, App II, No 5.

• ⁵ See References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11. See also R v Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd, [1988] 1 SCR 401 [Crown Zellerbach].

• ⁶ Ibid [Crown Zellerbach].

• ⁷ Ibid.

• ⁸ Ibid.

• ⁹ Constitution Act, 1982, s 35, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. See Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, [2004] 3 SCR 511.