Parliament commenced a new session last week. When it was prorogued in December 2009, 14 bills containing amendments to the Criminal Code died on the order paper, including Bill C-36, the Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act. Bill C-36 would have repealed the “faint hope” clause, a provision in the Criminal Code that currently allows persons convicted of first or second degree murder to seek early release on parole after serving 15 years of their sentence. Bill C-36 had passed through three readings in the House of Commons, and was before the Liberal dominated Senate before prorogation, where the amendments to the Criminal Code were a matter of some controversy. Now, there is some indication that the government will ask the opposition to reinstate rather than reintroduce the crime bills this session. Reinstatement would require a majority vote in the House of Commons to allow the process of considering the bills to resume where it left off. The difference of course is that the Senate now has several more Conservative members, appointed during the period of prorogation. A recent Alberta case helps to illustrate the potential consequences of Bill C-36 should it become law.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 6-3 decision late last year, came down squarely in favour of provincial jurisdiction over transportation undertakings such as freight forwarding companies not themselves involved in interprovincial transportation. Shippers do not become subject to federal jurisdiction under s.92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 merely by contracting for interprovincial transportation of goods, even if the company’s service includes delivery of goods in a receiving province. A recent post on The Court considered the implications of this case for division of powers analysis; my post will consider the Court’s interpretive approach in a modern natural resources context.
There are few written decisions on the rights, liberties, powers and immunities of custodians appointed by the court to wind up or manage another lawyer’s practice pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L 8, section 95. Polis v. Edwards, 2010 ABCA 59 adds to that small body of law, although its ability to do so was limited by the fact the appellants were self-represented - and apparently not very well self-represented at that. The Court of Appeal notes (at para. 4) that there were at least 23 different issues or grounds of appeal set out in the appellants’ joint factum and, although there might have been more, they were incomprehensible in law. Nevertheless, one legal question of interest to more than the parties was squarely before the Court of Appeal and that was the question of whether a custodian is entitled to tax the accounts of the member of the Law Society of Alberta (LSA) whose legal business they were appointed to manage or wind up. That question was, not surprisingly, answered in the affirmative.
February 26, 2010 is the second anniversary of ABlawg. To mark this occasion, we are interested in hearing from our readers about the impact and usefulness of ABlawg.Here are some of the questions on which we would appreciate receiving feedback:
• Are you a subscriber to ABlawg?
• How often do you read ABLawg?
• Have you used ABlawg posts in your work? How?
• Are you aware of ABlawg posts that have been cited by a court, in a legal argument, in an academic article or in another blog post? Please provide details.
• Has ABlawg assisted you in understanding the law in a particular area?
• Have you posted a comment to an ABlawg post? Why or why not?
• How does ABlawg compare with other blogs that you may subscribe to?
• What can we do to improve ABlawg?
In a rare move, the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner, Frank Work, issued a strongly worded news release in response to the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Alberta Teachers’ Association v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) (”ATA“). See January 29, 2010, “Commissioner Work expresses Grave Concern over Recent Court of Appeal Ruling.” Mr. Work said, “This decision may have dire implications for every tribunal in this province which has stipulated timelines. There should be a lot of concern on that front.” What prompted this comment?
Ecojustice, on behalf of its client MiningWatch Canada, declared victory on January 21, 2010 with the release of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans). In brief, Justice Rothstein for a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the track of environmental assessment conducted by a federal responsible authority pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37 flows directly from the scope of the project as proposed by a project proponent. The decision confirms that tracking an environmental assessment sequentially precedes project scoping under Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and is of obvious significance in the conduct of federal environmental assessment on projects in Alberta on a go forward basis.
This is a well-researched and clearly written decision by Justice Keith Yamauchi on an unresolved issue in insurance law. The question is whether relief from forfeiture is available when a life insurance policy lapses for non-payment of premiums. Since 1994, the usual approach of the courts confronted by this question has been to merely assume relief from forfeiture was available and decide on the easier basis that, even if it was available, it was not appropriate to grant it on the facts of the case before them. In this decision, however, Justice Yamauchi decided the legal point and determined that relief from forfeiture was not available. This decision has several points of interest from a property law perspective, which is the perspective I am adopting for these comments. The aspects of this decision that interest me the most are two. The first is the perceived tension between statutorily regulated life insurance contracts and the body of law known as equity, also known as the classic tension between certainty and justice in the individual case. The second is the sharp line drawn, obliterated, and then re-drawn between property and contract.
Matter considered: Alternatives North, Notice of Motion, Mackenzie Gas Project, asking the National Energy Board to order the proponent to provide the Board with an update on the North American gas market
The Joint Review Panel issued its assessment of the Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP) at the end of 2009 and attention now turns to the National Energy Board (NEB) which must decide whether (subject to the approval of the Governor in Council) to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the pipeline.
Case considered:Canpar Holdings Ltd v Petrobank Energy and Resources Ltd and Gentry Resources Ltd, unreported transcript of reasons for judgement October 9, 2009 and December 11, 2009, available here.
In this case Justice Miller decided that: (1) a an oil and gas lease that contains a no-deduction form of royalty clause (royalty calculated by reference to sales price and not by reference to value at the wellhead) means just that - no deductions (whatever the industry custom or practice to the contrary), (2) a lessor can terminate a lease by following the default clause of the lease where the lessee has not being paying royalty in accordance with the terms of the lease, and (3) at least in the circumstances of this case, a lessee that produces on a lease that has been terminated by the lessor triggering the default clause may be exposed to an accounting on the basis of sales value of production minus operating costs. Given the importance of each of these issues it is unfortunate that Justice Miller decided to dispose of the matter by way of oral reasons from the bench.
Back in December, CBC News reported on the stay of proceedings in the trial against Kulwinder Singh Rajasansi and Wesley Keane Sinclair. The two men were charged with sexually assaulting a young woman in October, 2004. The reason for the stay? It took the case 35 months to get to trial - that’s one month shy of 3 years.
