Case considered:  Edmonton Police Service v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009 ABQB 593

PDF version: Further Developments in the Cassels FOIPPA Matter

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.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

Case considered: Kelly v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board, 2009 ABCA 349

PDF Version: The problem of Locus Standi at the Energy Resources Conservation Board: A Diceyan solution

Introduction
A person must have ‘standing’ to oppose an energy project being considered for approval by the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB). In January 2009 the ERCB denied standing to Susan Kelly, Linda McGinn, and Lillian Duperron in relation to an application by Grizzly Resources to drill two sour gas wells near their residences. All three applicants reside outside the designated 2.11 km area emergency planning zone (EPZ) surrounding the gas wells and designated by Grizzly pursuant to ERCB Directive 071 - Emergency Preparedness and Response Requirements for the Petroleum Industry. Directive 071 defines an EPZ as the area surrounding a sour gas well that due to its proximity requires an emergency response plan from the well licensee. The delineation of an EPZ by and large defines the applicant’s consultation requirements set by the ERCB and, as I note below, it also informs the ERCB’s interpretation of the standing test in section 26(2) of the Energy Resources Conservation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E - 10. The distinguishing feature in this case involves the relatively new requirement in Directive 071 for sour gas well licensees to model a protective action zone (PAZ) which anticipates the movement of a sour gas plume upon release from the well. Kelly, McGinn and Duperron reside within the designated PAZ modelled by Grizzly, which covered a larger area than the EPZ. This fact proved significant in the subsequent Alberta Court of Appeal proceedings.

(more…)

Case considered: Stout & Company LLP. v. Chez Outdoors Ltd., 2009 ABQB 444

PDF Version: A Web from a Bundle: A Reconstitution of Stout & Company LLP. v. Chez Outdoors Ltd.

“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe”: John Muir, My First Summer in the Sierra (1911)

John Muir’s famous quote has encapsulated North American conservation thought for nearly 100 years. As environmental science, industry and protected areas movements advanced through the previous century, it became increasingly apparent that one could not separate the constituents of the environment in an attempt to understand or protect them. A holistic view was necessary to counter the destructive effects of increasing human populations and industrialization in Muir’s day. Today we have even more compelling evidence of the profound interconnectedness of the natural world and human systems and the need to view them inclusively.

(more…)

Case considered: Miazga v. Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC 51

PDF Version:  Prosecutorial Accountability?

In its 2002 decision in Law Society of Alberta v. Krieger, 2002 SCC 65, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the ability of the Law Society of Alberta to regulate misconduct by Crown prosecutors. It held, however, that where the misconduct relates to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the Law Society’s jurisdiction is limited to circumstances where the prosecutor has acted in bad faith. The Court reiterated that, in general, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is entitled to deference, and may only be reviewed by the Court in circumstances of “flagrant impropriety” (Krieger, para. 49).

In its recent judgment in Miazga v. Kvello Estate, the Supreme Court has affirmed this highly deferential approach to prosecutorial discretion. The Court held that to establish liability for malicious prosecution the plaintiff must demonstrate a) that the defendant was responsible for the prosecution; b) that the legal proceedings ultimately resolved in favour of the plaintiff; c) that the defendant did not have reasonable and probable grounds for a prosecution, objectively speaking (that is, that the defendant’s professional judgment should have indicated that it was not possible that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt could be made out in a court of law” (para. 63); at this stage the prosecutor’s subjective belief in guilt is irrelevant); and, d) that the defendant acted for some improper purpose in bringing forward the prosecution - that the defendant “deliberately intended to subvert or abuse the office of the Attorney General or the process of Criminal Justice” (para 89).

(more…)

Case considered: Hunt Oil Company of Canada Inc v. Shell Canada Limited, 2009 ABQB 627

PDF Version:  When, if at all, does a pooling agreement trigger an area of mutual interest obligation?

In a 1994 decision, Luscar v Pembina Resources Ltd (1994), 162 AR 34, the Alberta Court of Appeal cast doubt on the proposition that Y, a lessee of a tract within a drilling spacing unit (DSU), who enters into a cross conveyance pooling agreement with Z, a lessee of a different tract within the same DSU, will invariably trigger an area of mutual interest (AMI) obligation that Y owes to X with respect to the undivided interest that Y acquired within Z’s tract by virtue of the pooling agreement.

In this decision, Justice Alan Macleod has extended that line of reasoning and has decided (subject to the language used in any particular case) that Y will not trigger an AMI obligation, not only in the narrow situation described above but also in the situation where Y and Z, holding adjacent lands, enter into a pooling agreement to improve project economics and not for the purpose of forming a drilling spacing unit.

(more…)

Case considered: Moose Mountain Buffalo Ranch v. Greene Farms Drilling Ltd., 2009 ABQB 489

PDF version: Reasonable or resolute? Musings on the obligation of lawyers to grant reasonable requests for extensions

Moose Mountain Buffalo Ranch and Greene Farms Drilling Ltd. entered into a contractual agreement pursuant to which Greene Farms undertook to service a deep water well and drill for water on lands owned by Moose Mountain. The lands are in Saskatchewan, and Greene Farms operates in Saskatchewan, but Greene Farms is extra-provincially registered in Alberta.

(more…)