Law360 Canada (October 13, 2023, 1:27 PM EDT) -- Appeal by the Attorney General of Canada (Canada) of a decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal which found that the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) and the Physical Activities Regulations (Regulations) were unconstitutional. Parliament enacted the IAA and the Governor in Council made the Regulations under the IAA. Together, the IAA and the Regulations, established a complex information gathering and regulatory scheme. Sections 81-91 of the IAA dealt with projects carried out or financed by federal authorities on federal lands or outside Canada while the balance of the scheme, the IAA’s remaining provisions and the Regulations, dealt with designated projects as defined in the IAA. Alberta’s Lieutenant Governor in Council referred the following questions to the Alberta Court of Appeal: First, was the IAA unconstitutional, in whole or in part, as being beyond the legislative authority of Parliament under the Constitution? Second, were the Regulations unconstitutional, in whole or in part, by virtue of purporting to apply to certain activities listed in Schedule 2 that related to matters entirely within the legislative authority of the provinces under the Constitution? A majority of the Court of Appeal concluded that the IAA and the Regulations were ultra vires Parliament and therefore unconstitutional in their entirety. Canada appealed. It argued that the defined term “effects within federal jurisdiction” aligned with federal legislative jurisdiction. Canada also submitted that the pith and substance of the IAA was to establish a federal environmental assessment process to safeguard against adverse environmental effects in relation to matters within federal jurisdiction....