Cases Considered: Koppe v. Garneau Lofts Inc., 2008 ABQB 354

PDF Version: Rights of First Refusal and Options to Purchase: What’s the Difference?

Garneau Lofts Inc. had redeveloped commercial property in an historical structure which had been St. Joseph’s Hospital on Whyte Avenue, in the City of Edmonton. The redeveloped property, with shops on the main floor, became known as the Garneau Lofts, combining unique, luxurious suites with a popular Whyte Avenue location. Dr. Sandy Koppe, an optometrist, had leased a portion of the Garneau Lofts for an upscale boutique eye wear store. He had leased it on behalf of his employer, Eye Care Optometric Group Ltd., a company in which his daughters were the only directors and shareholders.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Webber v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Alta. H.R.P.; May 30, 2008) (Brenda F. Scragg, Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Human Rights Panel Faced with Mandatory Retirement (Again)

Although this case deals with a legal issue that is far from new, there are a couple of significant developments regarding mandatory retirement and discrimination. Mr. Webber had worked for Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (”Canfor”) in a mill for over 24 years before retiring on October 29, 2004 at age 65, because he was subject to a long-standing mandatory retirement policy. Not wanting to retire, he had requested but been denied an extension. Although Mr. Webber was a member of a union, he did not file a grievance, but instead, on the advice of his union, on October 18, 2004, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (”Commission”) under s. 7(1)(a) of the Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (”HRCMA“) for discrimination in the area of employment on the ground of age. As the matter was not resolved at the Commission, the Chief Commissioner ordered a Human Rights Panel (”Panel”) to hear the matter.

(more…)

In 2 previous posts (see here and here) I discussed the application of Gilles Caron for an interim costs order to fund his language rights claim against the Alberta government. This application was required in large part because of the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program (CCP) by the Harper government in 2006. In a recent development described in an excellent post by Shelagh Day on rabble.ca the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA) has settled its claim against the federal government for the cancellation of the CCP. Part of the settlement agreement includes the reinstatement of funding for minority language rights litigation. However, in spite of the fact that the FCFA’s claim was to restore funding for both the language rights and equality rights components of the CCP, the government only restored funding to the former. The FCFA’s victory is welcome, and may permit claims like that of Caron to proceed in the future without interim costs applications. However, there is a huge gap left by the continued inability of equality rights claimants to seek funding for their litigation. Will it take a costly lawsuit on the equality rights side to see funding restored?

Cases Considered: R. v. Tran, 2008 ABCA 209

PDF Version:  Infidelity Does Not Necessarily Amount to Provocation

Domestic violence remains a terrible problem in Canadian society, and Alberta has one of the highest rates in the country (Karen Mihorean, Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2005 (Ottawa: Minister of Industry, 2005) at 15). Over the past 30 years, legislators, courts and law enforcement officers have generally progressed from treating such violence as a private matter, to confirming that it is as serious as other violence, and finally, to considering the family context as an aggravating circumstance. When domestic violence leads to death, however, perpetrators can argue a provocation defence just as they could in any murder trial. If successfully argued, provocation will reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter. In its recent decision in R. v. Tran, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that infidelity will not necessarily lead to a successful provocation defence in such cases.

(more…)

Cases Considered: 365733 Alberta Ltd. v. Tiberio, 2008 ABQB 328

PDF Version: Challenging Purchasers’ Ability to Obtain Specific Performance of Agreements for the Purchase and Sale of Land

365733 Alberta Ltd. v. Tiberio illustrates how commonplace challenges to purchasers’ ability to claim interests in land under purchase and sale agreements have become. Before the 1996 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Semelhago v. Paramadevan, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 415, courts granted specific performance of agreements for the purchase and sale of land, forcing reluctant vendors to live up to bargains. Performance of the agreement was mandated because land was seen as unique, something whose loss could not be compensated for in monetary damages. Land was not like mass produced consumer goods. However, after Semelhago, purchasers had to produce evidence that the land they wanted to buy was unique and without a ready substitute in the market.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Kerr Interior Systems Ltd. (Re), 2008 ABQB 286

PDF Version: Classifying Creditors under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act

In an application for an order to sanction a Plan of Arrangement (Plan), the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench refused to allow the two protesting creditors to form their own class for the purpose of voting on the Plan in Kerr Interior Systems Ltd. (Re). For the purpose of this post, I will lay out the facts then focus on the principles underlying the classification of creditors under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (CCAA). Pursuant to section 4 CCAA, different classes of unsecured creditors can be created, such that each class would have a separate vote on whether to approve a Plan. This case is one of the most recent to deal with the technical and difficult issue regarding the classification of creditors and Madam Justice M.B. Bielby provides a thorough discussion of the principles that need to be considered before a court will sanction a plan of arrangement.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Darren E. Lund v. Stephen Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. (May 30, 2008 Lori G. Andreachuck, Q.C. Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Remedy Decision Released in the Lund v. Boissoin Case

In an earlier decision released on November 30, 2007, which dealt with a complaint about a hateful message against the gay community published in a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate, online, the Alberta Human Rights Panel (”Panel”) found that Stephen Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. had contravened s. 3 of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (”HRCMA“), R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14. The Panel released its decision on the remedy on May 30, 2008. The original case, together with a few recent cases involving similar provisions in other provinces’ and the federal government’s human rights legislation, has spawned outcry across Canada about limiting the powers of human rights commissions or even doing away with commissions altogether. The remedy ordered in this case has also sparked renewed criticism of the HRCMA (see for example: “Keep Your Promise, Premier: Stand up for freedom of speech” Calgary Herald 06 June 2008 online).

(more…)

Cases, Legislation and Proposed Legislation Considered: Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act, WIPO Copyright Treaty; Performances and Phonograms Treaty; Théberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain inc., 2002 SCC 34 ; CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 SCC 13.

PDF Version:  Bill C-61 Locks Out User Rights

Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act, tabled in the House of Commons by Alberta MP Jim Prentice on June 12^th, 2008, contains proposed amendments to the Copyright Act designed to allow Canada to implement and ratify the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (“Internet Treaties”). The centerpiece of the Bill is s. 41, which generally prohibits the circumvention of technological measures; that is, apart from a few narrow exceptions, it prohibits the unlocking of digital locks on content such as software, digitized music, digitized books and other protected subject matter, even for the purpose of exercising user rights recognized in the Copyright Act, such as fair dealing, and for some rights explicitly recognized in Bill C-61 (e.g. for time shifting or device shifting).  Bill C-61 goes further still, generally prohibiting unlocking services and dealing in keys to allow the unlocking of digital locks on content. Unfortunately, such provisions are at odds with the idea that owners’ rights in protected subject matter should be balanced with users’ rights in that subject matter. (more…)

Cases Considered: Adeco Exploration Company Ltd. v. Hunt Oil Company of Canada Inc. 2008 ABCA 214, varying unreported oral reasons for judgement of May 3, 2007.

PDF Version: The legal implications of failing to continue a Crown oil and gas lease: the duty of the operator to its joint operators and to the holder of a royalty interest

One of the most important events in the life of a Crown oil and gas lease or licence in Alberta is the point of continuation at the end of the primary term (a lease) or at the end of the intermediate term (a licence). It is important because a lease or licence lapses at the end of its primary or intermediate term except to the extent that it is continued (Mines and Minerals Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-17, s.82(1)). And when a lease lapses as to some or all of the leased area so too will any royalty interests with respect to that area of the lease.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited v. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development et al, 2008 FC 598, Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302,

PDF Version:  Back on track to socio-ecological ruin: Kearl oil sands project re-authorized

My initial post on the Kearl project (see Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin) was accurate after all. Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s decision in Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302, that held the Kearl joint panel breached section 34 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37, was simply a brief foray into environmental bliss. On June 6, 2008, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans re-issued the requisite authorization under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, to Imperial Oil, reportedly on identical terms and conditions as set out in the original authorization (see my previous post Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization for more discussion on the nullification of the initial authorization). (more…)