Cases Considered: R. v. Hardy, 2007 ABQB 747

PDF Version: Anthropomorphic Justice: The Case of the Cute, Yet Menacing Dog

Erin is a 10 year-old who loves dogs. One morning while in the Kensington district of inner-city Calgary with her parents, Erin’s affection led to an unfortunate encounter with Paul Hardy’s young German pointer leashed to a sidewalk post. As she attempted to pet the dog, it unexpectedly lunged upwards and bit her mouth. She required plastic surgery to treat the severe injuries inflicted upon her lips.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Lion’s Gate Homes Ltd. v. Shand, 2008 ABQB 15

PDF Version: Leave to Appeal Arbitration Awards and the Addition of the Public Interest

This brief decision by Mr. Justice D.K. Miller provides an opportunity to look at how the courts in Alberta have interpreted subsection 44(2) of the Arbitration Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-43. This is the provision that usually governs the ability of the parties to appeal an arbitrator’s award. Although subsection 44(2) does not, on the face of it, require that there be any public interest in the parties’ dispute or the award resolving that dispute or an appeal from the award, judges of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta have fairly consistently read in that extra element.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Re Boychuk (Estate), 2008 ABQB 38

PDF Version: Restraining Disinheritance

The idea that a deceased person’s estate should be available to those who were dependent upon the deceased during his or her lifetime is an idea recognized by many legal systems. Sometimes it finds expression in the forced distribution of shares of a deceased’s estate; in other cases, a maintenance principle is adopted. Alberta originally adopted the forced share approach. The Married Women’s Relief Act, enacted in 1910, authorized a court to grant a widow who had been left less in her husband’s will than she would have been entitled to as her intestate share “such allowance … as may be just and equitable in the circumstances.” The courts interpreted that provision to me an the widow was entitled to an amount equivalent to her intestate share: McBratney v. McBratney (1919), 50 D.L.R. 132. However, within a generation, Alberta shifted to the more flexible maintenance approach and extended protection to children. In Alberta’s current statute, the Dependants Relief Act, the deceased’s dependants are entitled to adequate maintenance from his or her estate. (more…)

Cases Considered: Johnston v. Alberta (Vital Statistics), 2008 ABCA 2, Johnston v. Alberta (Director of Vital Statistics, 2007 ABCA 394, Johnston v. Alberta (Director of Vital Statistics), 2007 ABQB 597

PDF Version: Leave to Intervene Denied to Métis Nation in Case Involving Disinterment of RCMP

The case concerning Constable Lionide (Leo) Johnston’s place of burial has been before the Alberta courts a number of times, and has received a fair degree of media attention. Constable Johnston was one of four RCMP officers killed in the line of duty on March 3, 2005 near Mayerthorpe, Alberta.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Can-Am Produce & Trading Ltd. v. Kan Yan Trading Co. Ltd., 2007 ABQB 738

PDF Version: Choice-of-Law Principles and the Guarantees Acknowledgment Act

Introduction

Alberta’s Guarantees Acknowledgment Act (G.A.A.), R.S.A. 2000, c. G-11, is a unique piece of legislation. It requires an individual guarantor in most cases to appear before a notary public and acknowledge that he or she is the person who executed the guarantee. The notary must then examine the person to satisfy him or herself that the guarantor is aware of the contents of the guarantee and understands its effect. Upon being so satisfied, the notary then issues a certificate to that effect which must be signed by the guarantor.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2007 ABCA 426, overruling Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2006 ABQB 302, which overruled John Chiasson v. Kellogg, Brown & Root (Canada) Company (Halliburton Group Canada Inc.) (February 14, 15, 16 and March 1, 2005; Colonel (Ret’d) Delano W. Tolley, Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Court of Appeal Sends Court of Queen’s Bench Decision to Rehab

In December 2007, the Court of Appeal of Alberta overturned a detailed Court of Queen’s Bench decision on pre-employment drug testing. The case originated in the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (“AHRCC”). Mr. Chaisson, the complainant, was offered a position as a receiving inspector with Kellogg Brown & Root (“KBR”) ’s oil sands project, but was required to undergo a pre-employment medical and drug test, as a condition of his employment. Two weeks after commencing employment, the complainant’s results came back, indicating that he had tested positive for the presence of marijuana. Consequently, the complainant was terminated. The AHRCC’s Human Rights Panel dismissed Chaisson’s complaint on the basis that there was no evidence that the complainant suffered from a real or perceived disability, as he was only a recreational drug user, and thus was unable to substantiate a case of prima facie discrimination on the basis of physical disability. The Panel held that drug impairment of any kind would impact the complainant’s performance, and as such the pre-employment drug test was a reasonable requirement for the position for which the complainant was applying.

(more…)

Cases Considered: O’Neill v. Deacons, 2007 ABQB 754

PDF Version: Alberta’s New Vexatious Litigant Law Applied

The Alberta government passed new legislation in June of 2007 to give courts in the province more power to deal more effectively with “vexatious litigants.” These individuals were described by the Honourable Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Ron Stevens, in the Legislative Assembly on second reading of the amendments, in the following terms:

(more…)

Cases Considered: R. v. Diebel, 2007 ABCA 418, R. v. Douglas, 2007 ABCA 321

PDF Version: Taking Violence Against Women Seriously in Sentencing Decisions

In two recent cases, the Alberta Court of Appeal has considered certain forms of violence against women to be an aggravating factor in sentence appeals. While both are memoranda of judgments and thus of lesser weight than reserved reasons for decision, the cases are nevertheless indicative of the Court’s resolve to take violence against women seriously. (more…)