Cases considered: Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement, Director) v. Q.F., 2008 ABQB
PDF Version:  Courts send message to legislature that the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act requires amendment

It is always interesting to see a court sending a message to the government about the difficulties presented by a particular piece of legislation. In constitutional law, the dialogue metaphor has been used (and some would say overused) to describe this process of back and forth between the courts and legislatures (see Peter Hogg and Alison Bushell, “The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps the Charter of Rights Isn’t Such a Bad Thing After All)” (1997) 35 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 75). Outside the constitutional law context, however, legislatures are not forced to listen and respond, as the remedial implications of striking down a piece of legislation, or severing certain sections as unconstitutional, are absent. Courts might thus need to repeat themselves before the legislature takes notice of non-constitutional problems with a statute, as we see in a recent child welfare case in Alberta.

(more…)

Cases considered: G 400 Holdings Ltd. v. Yeoman Development Company Limited, 2008 ABQB 667

PDF Version: Is there really any question about the test for part performance in Alberta

I apparently spoke too soon. In March 2008, I noted that the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Booth v. Knibb Developments Ltd., 2002 ABCA 180 had settled any doubts about which test for part performance applies in Alberta: see “The Doctrine of Part Performance: Still Strict After All These Years”. There are two tests for determining what acts of part performance are sufficient to allow enforcement of an oral agreement concerning land, both originally formulated by the House of Lords. The older and stricter test was set out in Maddison v. Alderson (1883), 8 App. Ca. 467 at 478 (H.L.); it requires that the acts relied upon by the claimant as part performance “be unequivocally, and in their own nature, referable to some such agreement as that alleged.” That test was relaxed considerably in England in 1976, with the decision in Steadman v. Steadman, [1976] A.C. 536. In Steadman, the House of Lords held that the acts of part performance need refer only on the balance of probabilities to some contract to which the claimant was a party. Although a number of Alberta courts applied the more relaxed test from Steadman in the 1980s, in 2002 the Alberta Court of Appeal unequivocally adopted the traditional, stricter test from Maddison v. Alderson. That was the end of the influence of Steadman in Alberta - until the October 30, 2008 decision of Madam Justice Barbara Romaine in G 400 Holdings Ltd. v. Yeoman Development Company Limited.
(more…)

Cases Considered: Johnston v. Alberta (Vital Statistics), 2008 ABCA 188, leave to appeal denied by S.C.C.

PDF Version:  Supreme Court denies leave to appeal to parents in disinterment case

On November 13, 2008, Justices Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps and Louise Charron of the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal to Grace Johnston in a case involving her right to have a say in the disinterment of her son’s remains. No reasons were provided for the Supreme Court’s decision, although it is interesting to note that no costs were awarded against Grace Johnston for pursuing the leave to appeal application. As noted in previous posts on this case, (http://ablawg.ca/2008/01/12/leave-to-intervene-denied-to-metis-nation-in-case-involving-disinterment-of-rcmp/#more-44 and http://ablawg.ca/2008/06/07/disinterment-of-rcmp-officer-may-proceed-despite-parents%E2%80%99-wishes/#more-153), the Alberta Courts upheld the decision of the Director of Vital Statistics under the Cemeteries Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-3, to permit disinterment of Constable Leo Johnston’s remains on the application of his widow Kelly Barsness. Constable Johnston was one of four RCMP officers killed in the line of duty near Mayerthorpe, Alberta in March 2005, and was originally buried in his home town of Lac La Biche. Ms. Barsness’s wish to have Constable Johnston’s remains moved to the special RCMP Cemetery in Saskatchewan can now proceed, in spite of the objections of Grace Johnston, her husband Ronald, and members of the Métis community who were denied any standing in the case.

Cases considered: Tsuu T’ina Nation v. Bearchief, 2008 CanLII 55966 (S.C.C.)
 

PDF Version:  Recent Developments in the Black Bear Crossing Dispute

As noted in my previous post on Tsuu T’ina Nation v. Bearchief, the Tsuu T’ina Nation was effectively prevented from enforcing an eviction notice against residents of Black Bear Crossing (BBC) whose band membership was disputed, until such time as the membership of the residents was resolved. The Tsuu T’ina’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justices Morris Fish and Marshall Rothstein on October 30, 2008 (with costs against the Tsuu T’ina Nation).

(more…)

Cases Considered: B.H. v. E.J., 2008 ABQB 650

PDF Version: Can a Court of Queen’s Bench judgment that contains no law be considered law itself?

Title to a residential property in Edmonton was registered in the names of the plaintiff, B.H., and the defendant, E.J., as to each an undivided one-half interest as tenants in common. The property seemed to be up for sale and the question before the court was whether or not B.H. was entitled to any of the proceeds of sale. Her name was on the title, but did that mean B.H. had an interest in the Edmonton house which would entitle her to one-half of the sale proceeds? E.J. alleged that B.H.’s name was only placed on the title because she agreed to co-sign a mortgage for E.J. and that B.H. had no right to a portion of the sale proceeds. Mr. Justice James Langston agreed with the defendant, E.J., and ordered that all of the net proceeds of the sale of the property be paid to the defendant or, in the alternative, that the plaintiff transfer her undivided one-half interest to the defendant for $1.00. Remarkably, Justice Langston did so without referring to any legal authority whatsoever.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333; Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458  Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311.

PDF Version:  Torts, Tasers and Causation

The recent deaths that occurred in Calgary and Edmonton following the use of a conducted energy weapon (generically referred to here as a “taser”) have once again raised the issue of the appropriate use of tasers in policing. In fact, there have been at least 20 deaths in Canada following the use of tasers. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Amnesty International Canada have called for a moratorium on their use. The RCMP Public Complaints Commissioner called for a moratorium on their use if the RCMP cannot properly instruct its members to appropriately deploy the taser in an operational setting. It is in this context that the Alberta Solicitor General, Fred Lindsay, and the Premier of Alberta, Ed Stelmach, downplayed the possibility that the use of a taser can cause death. This post argues that, notwithstanding the opinions of these elected officials regarding causation, it is possible for police officers to be found liable in negligence as a result of using a taser.

(more…)

Cases Considered: F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53

PDF Version:  The civil standard of proof confirmed: Always proof on a balance of probabilities but now mindful of the mysterious “inherent” probabilities or improbabilities

* Brett Code acknowledges the able assistance of Shankar Kamath, a student-at-law at Bennett Jones LLP.

In F.H. v. McDougall, released October 2, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is only one standard of proof in a civil case: proof on a balance of probabilities. A mixed series of cases over the last 50 years had caused uncertainty as to the applicable standard of proof when trying allegations of morally blameworthy conduct, for example, of fraud, of sexual assault in the civil context or of dishonesty in the context of professional conduct by lawyers (see for example Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 All E.R. 458 at 459 (C.A., Lord Denning); H.F. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] B.C.J. No. 436, 2002 BCSC 325 at para 154; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 at 138; Continental Insurance Co. v. Dalton Cartage Co., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 164 at 169-171). What had evolved was an apparently sliding scale, sometimes requiring plaintiffs to meet a higher standard of proof, a standard often said to be commensurate with the occasion. That uncertainty is now resolved, perhaps finally.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Schneider v. Alberta (Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers’ Compensation), 2008 ABQB 662.

PDF Version: A case of Disablement and Deference under the Workers’ Compensation Act

Maurice Schneider was exposed to asbestos at work in the late 1960s and subsequently developed asbestosis, a drastic reduction in lung capacity whose primary symptom is severe shortness of breath. The disease has a long incubation period before symptoms become apparent (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestosis). On March 10, 2003 Schneider underwent studies that confirmed he suffers from a mild pulmonary impairment (asbestosis), and in September 2004 the Alberta Workers’ Compensation Board accepted that Schneider’s asbestosis was the result of workplace exposure. Schneider was accordingly entitled to benefits under the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W-15.

(more…)

Considered: Accelerating Carbon Capture and Storage in Alberta, dated September 30, 2008, released October 22, 2008

PDF Version: Comments on the Interim Report of the Alberta Carbon Capture and Storage Development Council, Accelerating Carbon Capture and Storage in Alberta

In these comments we focus on three aspects of the interim report: (1) the treatment of the ownership of pore space, (2) the design of a provincial tenure system for geological sequestration, and (3) the treatment of liability issues. In each case we provide our understanding of what it is that the Council proposes and then we provide our comments. While we welcome the report and agree with the need to accelerate the adoption of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in Alberta, we think that these sections of the report require further clarification before the Council issues its final report. In particular, we think that the report needs to do a much better job of, identifying the problems and providing reasoned arguments for the solutions that it advances.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Divine Pet Spa Ltd. v Divine Doggies Spa & Boutique Inc., 2008 ABQB 618

PDF Version: Use of a corporate name or registered trade name does not prevent liability for passing off

Charisma Snyder registered a trade name “Divine Doggies Grooming & Boutique” on July 27, 2007 and “Divine Doggies Spa & Boutique” on August 14, 2007. A later name search did not reveal “Divine Pet Spa”, either as part of a corporate name or a trade-mark, so she incorporated Divine Doggies Spa & Boutique Inc. on September 8, 2007. It commenced dog grooming services in June, 2008. As early as 2006, however, Divine Pet Spa Ltd. had engaged in significant marketing of its cat and dog grooming business in order to create goodwill in the Calgary marketplace. In Divine Pet Spa Ltd. v Divine Doggies Spa & Boutique Inc., 2008 ABQB 618, Madam Justice C.L. Kenny of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench granted Divine Pet Spa Ltd. an interlocutory injunction against Divine Doggies Spa & Boutique Inc., restraining it from using and advertising the name “Divine Doggies Spa”. This decision is a reminder that, by using its corporate name or registered trade name, a business can be liable in tort law for passing off its products or services as those of another business.

(more…)