Cases Considered: Alberta Wilderness Association v Canada (Minister of the Environment), 2009 FC 710

PDF Version: Is SARA growing teeth?

One of the purposes of endangered species legislation is “to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity” (Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29 (SARA)). A crucial element of any recovery plan must be the identification of, and then subsequently the protection of, critical habitat for listed species. Without such designation and protection it is easy to predict that a listed species will continue on the downward slide to extinction. Habitat protection may not be a sufficient condition to reverse that slide, but it will likely be a necessary condition.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Brawn v. Profile Seismic Ltd., (June 16, 2009, Diane Colley-Urquhart Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Age Discrimination in Employment: What will Make the Grade?

Diane Colley-Urquhart, sitting as a Panel for the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (”Commission”), recently dealt with a complaint involving age discrimination in employment. This case illustrates how it can be quite difficult to prove discrimination when you have conflicting witness testimony, and how human rights law does not address unpleasant workplace cultures, when it is not clear that the offensive behaviour is based on a ground covered under human rights legislation.

(more…)

Cases Considered: Tribute Resources Inc v. McKinley Farms Ltd, 2009 CanLII 33043 (ON S.C.) 

PDF version: Ontario Oil and Gas Case of interest to the Calgary Bar.

While most of the country’s oil and gas cases are decided in Alberta courts (even if in some cases the property to which the litigation pertains is, for example, in British Columbia - see eg Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Encana Oil & Gas Partnership, 2008 ABCA 267 dealing with right of first refusal issues in relation to a property in British Columbia), sometimes the courts in other Canadian jurisdictions do get to add to the body of Canadian oil and gas law.

(more…)

Cases Considered:  Rittenhouse-Carlson v. Portage College 2009 ABQB 342

PDF version:  A curious cocktail – the mixed application of the law of contracts and administrative law to universities

Jane Rittenhouse-Carlson brought an action against Portage College alleging breach of contract and tortious conduct by the College. The alleged misconduct centered on the College’s decision to withdraw Ms. Rittenhouse-Carlson from the Health Care Aide program after she failed a practicum. Ms. Rittenhouse-Carlson alleged that she had been treated unfairly in the handling of the practicum, the assessment of it and as a result of the College’s failure to arrange an appropriate second practicum opportunity.

(more…)

Case considered: V.A.H. v. Lynch, 2009 ABCA 221, overturning V.A.H. v. Lynch, 2008 ABQB

PDF version: When No Means Yes: Voluntary Withdrawal of Consent to Medical Treatment

The V.A.H. case draws attention to the challenge of determining what actions on the part of a patient constitute withdrawal of consent to medical treatment, specifically in situations where the patient is receiving psychiatric treatment. In Alberta, patients can be admitted to psychiatric facilities on either a voluntary or involuntary basis. Voluntary patients are considered to have the capacity to consent to treatment and are able to discharge themselves against medical advice. Involuntary patients are admitted under the Mental Health Act (MHA), R.S.A. 1980, c. M-13 and the issue of consent is more complex. This post deals only with voluntary patients.

(more…)

Case considered: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2009 ABCA 246

PDF version: The fat lady is singing: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission)

The ongoing saga of the Alberta Utilities Commission’s treatment of the removal of utility assets from rate base continues.

In 2007 ATCO filed a general rate application with the then Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (”EUB”) for approval of rates for the 2008 and 2009 test years. It advised the EUB that it was excluding the “Salt Cavern” assets from its applied-for rate base. Its justification for doing so was that while those assets had historically been included, they were no longer being used for transmission service, and would not be used in the foreseeable future. The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) advised ATCO that ATCO could not exclude the assets from the application absent an application by ATCO (and AUC approval) under s. 26 of the Gas Utilities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. G-5. Section 26 requires a gas utility to obtain permission prior to the sale, lease, mortgage, disposal or encumbrance of property. ATCO argued that since it was not selling the property or otherwise disposing of it, but was simply moving it out of rate base, approval under s. 26 should not be required. The AUC took the position that a unilateral withdrawal from rate base was equivalent to a disposition. ATCO appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.

(more…)

Case considered: Cunningham v. Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2009 ABCA 239

PDF version: Another Take on Equality Rights by the Court of Appeal

In my recent post on Morrow v. Zhang, 2009 ABCA 215, Some Questions about the Decision to Reinstate the Cap on Damages for Soft Tissue Injuries, I noted that this case was the first opportunity for the Court of Appeal to apply section 15 of the Charter (the equality rights provision) since the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41. Only a couple of weeks later, a differently constituted Court of Appeal panel decided another section 15 case, and the analysis and outcome of the two cases are quite different. While I have a few quibbles with the Court’s decision in Cunningham v. Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), I believe it is a much better example of how section 15 of the Charter should be applied than is Morrow v. Zhang.

(more…)

Case considered: Morrow v. Zhang, 2009 ABCA 215, overturning 2008 ABQB 98

PDF version: More Questions about the Decision to Reinstate the Cap on Damages for Soft Tissue Injuries

In her post critiquing the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Morrow v. Zhang, Some Questions about the Decision to Reinstate the Cap on Damages for Soft Tissue Injuries, Professor Jennifer Koshan asks, “Did the Court actually apply the new approach to section 15 of the Charter?” I would like to focus on that question and raise a few additional and related matters. I agree with Professor Koshan that the Court of Appeal seems to apply the old test from Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497 in its section 15(1) analysis in Morrow v. Zhang. However, they do so without a focus on human dignity, which seems to result in the application of the Law test in a very formalistic way, rather than substantively. Does it matter? I think that the use of the original Law test, complete with a focus on human dignity, could have rather easily resulted in an affirmation of the trial judge’s decision. Alternatively, and perhaps more importantly, I think that an application of the test in R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, could also have resulted in an affirmation of the trial judge’s decision had that application really focused on stereotyping.

(more…)

Case considered: Felske Estate v. Donszelmann, 2009 ABCA 209

PDF version: Court of Appeal Agrees that Severing a Joint Tenancy Requires More than Intention

In a previous post, I concluded that the Court of Queen’s Bench correctly dismissed an application brought by a neighbor of Mrs. Felske for a declaration that he was entitled to half of her farm upon her death. The Court of Appeal has agreed and has dismissed the neighbor’s appeal.

(more…)

Case considered: Olson v. Angermeier, 2009 ABQB 356

PDF version: Is a Bison Squeeze Real or Personal Property? A Question of Law or a Question of Interpretation?

One of the first things a law student in first year property law class learns is the distinction between real property and personal property, the most basic of divisions in this area of law. The distinction is usually taught with reference to a case or two about the law of fixtures. The law of fixtures is the area of law that encompasses the legal rules that apply to transform personal property to real property and vice versa. There are hundreds of cases concerned with classifying something as real or personal property. The controversies usually arise in connection with the sale of real property. For example, is the dishwasher real or personal property? Does it go with the house on the sale of the real property or can the seller move it out with his or her other personal property? This type of question was the issue in Olson v. Angermeier. Was a bison squeeze a chattel (personal property) or a fixture (real property)? Answering that question would determine whether or not the bison squeeze was part of the sale of the NE¼-9-62-5-W5th.

(more…)