November 2009 – ABLawg

Recent developments in the case of Cassels highlight a difficulty faced by many people who request access to information held by public bodies. Since one is hoping to gain access to the desired information, one has to “guess” wisely about what information to ask for, from which department and in which format (e.g., electronic or paper). The agencies from which one requests information are not obligated under the law to create new records from their information, nor to incur great inconvenience and expense in order to provide the requested information. Thus, the wording of the request becomes very important-even in the absence of specific knowledge about what information is available.

The public and private duties of opposing counsel

By Alice Woolley

On November 25, 2009

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

Case considered: F.N. v. McGechie, 2009 ABQB 625

PDF version: The public and private duties of opposing counsel

Alberta courts have consistently held that misconduct by counsel in the course of litigation will not normally be the basis for liability to the opposing party in that litigation. While sometimes duties to opposing parties exist – as, for example, in the tort of malicious prosecution – the Alberta Court of Appeal in German v. Major (1985), 62 A.R. 2 (C.A.) made it clear that the duties of the lawyer to the court and to the public do not automatically translate into duties to opposing parties.

Human Rights, Police and Tenancy: A Troubling Mix?

By Linda McKay-Panos

On November 23, 2009

In Human Rights, Property

Case considered: Beaverbone v. Sacco, 2009 ABQB 529

PDF version: Human Rights, Police and Tenancy: A Troubling Mix?

A recent decision of Justice Joanne Veit of the Court of Queen’s Bench brings to light the potential interrelationship between landlord and tenant legislation, human rights legislation and the powers of the police-both generally and under the new Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act S.A., 2007, c. S-0.5 (“SCAN“). Before discussing the disturbing facts of the case, it is useful to discuss the legislation that could apply.

The Supreme Court of Canada Denies Leave in Brookfield

By Nigel Bankes

On November 20, 2009

In Oil & Gas, Supreme Court of Canada

Cases considered: Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v. Vanquish Oil and Gas Corporation, 2008 ABQB 444, reversed 2009 ABCA 99, leave to appeal denied November 19, 2009

The Supreme Court of Canada has denied leave to appeal to the joint operators in the Brookfield Bridge case. The case involves the circumstances under which a joint operator might be able to establish a constructive trust over assets of the operator other than those already impressed with an express trust by the language of clause 507 of the CAPL Operating Procedure in a situation where the operator expends monies from the commingled account for its purposes.

Staying Arbitration Proceedings under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On November 18, 2009

In Arbitration, Supreme Court of Canada

Case considered: Lamb v. AlanRidge Homes Ltd., 2009 ABCA 343

PDF version: Staying Arbitration Proceedings under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act

Lamb v. AlanRidge Homes Ltd. is an interesting case, in part because the Alberta Court of Appeal calls upon the Alberta legislature to review and amend section 7 of the Arbitration Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-43, a section the court criticizes (at para. 16) as “far from a model of clarity.” Calls for legislative action by the courts are not that common. The case is also interesting because section 7 is perhaps the provision most often used by the courts, as it is the provision that requires a court to stay a court action when asked to do so by a party to an agreement to arbitrate.It is, however, a section rarely considered by the Court of Appeal because subsection 7(6) provides that there is no appeal from an order of the Court of Queens’ Bench staying an action or refusing a stay under section 7. The case is also interesting because Alberta’s Arbitration Act is based upon the Uniform Arbitration Act which was prepared by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada in 1989, as were the arbitration statutes in six other provinces. Section 7 was carefully drafted and debated by the Commissioners. It seems somewhat odd to think that, twenty years later, there are basic problems with interpreting and applying that provision.

Month: November 2009 Page 1 of 3

Further Developments in the Cassels FOIPPA Matter

The public and private duties of opposing counsel

Human Rights, Police and Tenancy: A Troubling Mix?

The Supreme Court of Canada Denies Leave in Brookfield

Staying Arbitration Proceedings under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act