Ernst v Alberta Energy Regulator

Ernst v Alberta Energy Regulator was a 2017 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with the extent to which damages are available as a remedy under the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
Background.
This case pitted Jessica Ernst, an Alberta homeowner, against the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), who had ceased all forms of communication with her because her offhand remark in an electronic forum referred to Wiebo Ludwig had caused the regulator fear and anxiety over her purported terrorist sympathies. She claimed that her Charter rights to free speech had been abrogated by it, as it refused subsequently to hear her petitions in a dispute over her well-water, which she maintained had been polluted by the fracking activities of EnCana.
In 2007, Ernst sued the Alberta government, EnCana Corporation and the ERCB, for alleged negligence over the contamination of local aquifers during a period of intense and shallow fracking of coal seams near her home in Rosebud, Alberta. It was reported that, between 2003 and 2008, more than 100 Alberta landowners lost or reported damage to their water wells as a result of such activity.
During discussions with the ERCB as early as 2005, the Board identified her as a security threat, and refused any communication with her until she ceased criticizing its actions in public. As a result, she amended her statement of claim to include damages from the ERCB for violating her "Charter" rights under s. 2(b) thereof.
The ERCB and the Province sought to have certain paragraphs of the claim struck off or, in the alternative, better particulars with respect to such paragraphs. The Board also sought a further alternative of having summary judgment granted in its favour.
The courts below.
The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta ruled that:
The Court of Appeal of Alberta dismissed Ernst's appeal, declaring that the lower court's ruling "discloses no reviewable error."
At the Supreme Court.
By 5-4, the appeal was dismissed with costs, although for different reasons than were expressed by the Alberta courts.
Cromwell J held that, as Ernst had not successfully challenged the constitutionality of the immunity clause protecting the ERCB, the appeal must fail. However, the constitutional challenge still needed to be considered on its merits:
Abella J was more succinct in explaining why Ernst's claim must fail:
McLachlin CJ, in a joint dissent with Moldave and Brown JJ, would have allowed the appeal, returning the case to the Alberta courts to decide upon the issues relating to free speech and "Charter" remedies, because: