PDF version: The Case of the 1600 dead ducks: The verdict is in - Syncrude guilty under the Migratory Birds Convention Act 

Case considered: R. v. Syncrude Canada Ltd., 2010 ABPC 229

On June 25, 2010 Justice Ken Tjosvold of the Provincial Court of Alberta issued his guilty verdict against Syncrude Canada after a lengthy trial heard over approximately 8 weeks during this past March and April. The message is a powerful one: Syncrude is held to account by the criminal justice system for the death of 1600 migratory birds that landed in one of its tailings ponds.

(more…)

PDF version: What’s in a name? Construction Owners Association of Alberta and Construction Labour Relations – An Alberta Association Concerned about “Employer” in the Alberta Human Rights Act 

Case considered: Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2010 ABCA 184

It is fairly rare that two agencies not parties to an action would seek leave to intervene in a human rights appeal. I am not terribly surprised that the Alberta Human Rights Commission (formerly the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) has appealed the 2009 Court of Queen’s Bench decision in Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2009 ABQB 241. As I noted in my previous post on this case, the decision of Justice T.D. Clackson involving the interpretation of who is considered an “employer” under s. 7(1) of the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (now Alberta Human Rights Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-25.5) appeared to be contrary to both existing case law and the spirit of “large and liberal” interpretation normally given to human rights legislation. Apparently, there are Albertan companies and associations who share an interest in the outcome of the appeal.

(more…)

PDF version: Innovative but controversial municipal bylaws survive challenges

Case considered: Keller v. Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8, 2010 ABQB 362

This case is significant in three regards. First it raises the thorny issue of standard of review regarding the reasonableness of a municipal bylaw under the Municipal Government Act (R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26) (MGA),  given that the SCC in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 (Dunsmuir) collapsed the previous standard of review categories of patent unreasonableness and reasonableness into one category, reasonableness, and section 539 of the MGA that states that no municipal bylaw (or resolution) may be challenged on the ground that it is unreasonable. Second, it considers the validity of an innovative municipal land use management tool that is not specifically authorized by the MGA, thus shedding light on the breadth of municipal authority in carrying out its land use and development functions. Third, it is the first decision to consider the effect of the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, S.A. 2009, c. A-26.8 (ALSA). The case considers who may bring a challenge regarding alleged non-compliance with the ALSA, and whether the ALSA is retroactive.

(more…)

PDF version: Supreme Court of Canada Upholds Constitutionality of Publication Bans in Bail Hearings, Media Outlets Unhappy

Case Considered: Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, 2010 SCC 21, an appeal from the Courts of Appeal of Ontario (Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada, 2009 ONCA 59) and Alberta (R. v. White, 2008 ABCA 294).

The Supreme Court of Canada recently dealt with appeals from Ontario (Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada) and Alberta (R. v. White) wherein several media outlets challenged the constitutionality of s. 517 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-46, which sets out when judges must impose a mandatory publication ban for evidence heard in bail proceedings. In the White case, the Alberta Court of Appeal had determined that while Criminal Code s. 517 violates freedom of expression under Charter s. 2(b), it can nevertheless be saved by Charter s. 1 as reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society (see my previous post on White).

(more…)

PDF version: The True Bright Line Conflicts Rule

Case considered: Kovac v. Opus Building Corp., 2010 ABQB 366

That a “lawyer must not represent opposing parties to a dispute” (Alberta Code of Professional Conduct, Ch. 6, Rule 1) may be the most obvious, best understood and least frequently violated rule on conflicts of interest. Sometimes lawyers have problems when a joint representation properly undertaken with consent, develops unanticipatedly into a dispute. One cannot readily imagine, however, circumstances in which a lawyer would file a statement of claim that seeks relief for a party, and from a party, both at the same time.

(more…)

PDF: The case of the overbilling doctor Part II: The zero-sum game of enhancing administrative legitimacy? 

Case considered: Searles v. Alberta (Health and Wellness), 2010 ABQB 157

This comment relates to an earlier post of mine back in June 2008 concerning the reassessment by the Minister of Health and Wellness on the billings of Dr. Gordon Searles, and the successful judicial review application by Searles in the Court of Queen’s Bench wherein Justice Burrows set aside the Minister’s reassessment because he found the process exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias (Searles No. 1). (See Money attracts procedural fairness: the case of the overbilling doctor  for necessary background to this discussion.)  Subsequent to that judicial review the Minister recommenced the assessment process using a new delegate, and in September 2008 the Minister’s delegate advised Searles that he was once again reassessed in the amount of $985,777.09. Searles applied for judicial review of this second reassessment, once again asserting a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Minister’s delegate (Searles No. 2).

(more…)

PDF version: Access to Justice, the Charter and Administrative Tribunals in Alberta: Who holds the Holy Grail?

Case considered: R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22

On June 11, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada considered once again the jurisdiction of administrative tribunals to grant Charter remedies as “courts of competent jurisdiction” under section 24(1) of the Charter in R. v. Conway. This decision purports to broaden the power of administrative tribunals to award Charter remedies found in previous Supreme Court decisions by taking an “institutional” rather than “remedy by remedy” approach to the question of jurisdiction (at para. 23). However, Justice Rosalie Abella, writing for a unanimous Court, was also clear that a tribunal’s remedial jurisdiction under the Charter could be constrained by statute (at para. 22). Conway must therefore be read subject to Alberta’s Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-3.

(more…)

PDF version: A century of liability for an abandoned well

Case considered: Dalhousie Oil Company Limited, Section 40 Review of Abandonment Cost Order No. ACO 2008-1, Turner Valley Field, ERCB Decision 2010-19

In this decision the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB, the Board) confirms that the current owner of an abandoned well has a continuing responsibility to pay for the re-abandonment costs associated with that well even though the well in question had not produced since the 1920s. The decision is particularly interesting in the context of the current discussion surrounding who should assume responsibility for the long term liabilities associated with carbon capture and storage projects.

(more…)

PDF version: Ontario Court of Appeal holds that oil and gas lease continued by virtue of (late) payments under a unitization agreement 

Case considered: Tribute Resources v McKinley Farms, 2010 ONCA 392

The Court of Appeal has varied in part the decision in Tribute Resources v McKinley Farms that I blogged here. The trial judge held that any rights that Tribute held under the terms of an oil and gas lease or under the terms of a gas storage agreement (GSA) had terminated.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge on the GSA point but held that trial judge had erred in holding that the lease was continued by the terms of the unitization agreement. The Court of Appeal concluded that this was an ordinary commercial contract and that the Court must give effect to its terms. The agreement provided that payments under the unitization agreement were effective to deem production on the leased lands. The fact that some payments were late was not significant since the lease did not provide for automatic termination; the default clause was evidence of that and the default clause seemed to allow the lessee the right to notice and the opportunity to cure a default. There had been no notice of default and ergo the deeming was effective.

(more…)

PDF version: Much Ado about Little: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp.

Case considered: Yugraneft Corporation v. Rexx Management Corporation, 2010 SCC 19

An Alberta company, Rexx Management Corporation, was ordered to pay an almost $1 million US arbitration award in favour of a Russian company, Yugraneft Corporation. Yugraneft waited more than three years before applying to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench for recognition and enforcement of that arbitration award. When Yugraneft failed to gain recognition from the Court of Queen’s Bench, it appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal and, when unsuccessful again, was granted leave to appeal and did appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Thirteen judges have now heard the case and all thirteen judges have agreed: the two-year limitation period in section 3 of Alberta’s Limitations Act applied to Yugraneft’s application for recognition and enforcement and thus Yugraneft acted too late. With that degree of unanimity, one has to wonder what all the fuss in the international commercial arbitration community has been about. The case was monitored closely as it wound its way through the courts and several arbitration institutions intervened at the Supreme Court of Canada.

In this post, after briefly setting out the facts and procedural history, I will focus on one of the issues dealt with by the Supreme Court, the threshold issue. The key decision by all the levels of court that considered the matter was the decision that domestic legislation imposing any kind of limitation period was applicable. I will then deal with the question of which limitation period: ten years, six years or two years? After this discussion of the case itself, I will comment on two matters. The first is the question of whether this case really is a case of public importance. The second is speculation about what action proponents of international commercial arbitration might take now, following their loss in the Supreme Court. (more…)