Case commented on: Montes v. Al-Shiraida, 2011 ABQB 54

Manuel and Teresa Montes were injured in a motor vehicle accident. They each filed a statement of claim alleging that the accident was caused either by Al-Shiraida or by an unknown person operating a motor vehicle owned by Al-Shiraida. The Montes and the Administrator of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Act obtained consent judgments against Al-Shiraida. Al-Shiraida made two applications to set aside each of the consent judgments.

(more…)

Case commented on: Andriuk v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., 2011 ABQB 59

Andriuk filed a statement of claim against Merrill Lynch pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, S.A. 2003, c. C-16.5. Merrill Lynch had indicated that it would not provide a statement of defence until after the certification hearing and Andriuk did not object. Andriuk then served Merrill Lynch with a Notice to Admit Facts under the former Rule 230. Merrill Lynch claimed the Notice to Admit Facts (called a “Notice to Admit” under New Rule 6.37) was premature and otherwise improper and brought an application to strike it. Madam Justice Sheilah Martin dismissed Merrill Lynch’s application.

(more…)

PDF version: Issue of Timing Arises Again: Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Quashes Decision of Information and Privacy Commissioner for Reasonable Apprehension of Bias 

Case considered: Alberta Teachers’ Association v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2011 ABQB 19 (”Wright“)

Once again, the issue of timing in the investigation of privacy complaints has been raised. In Alberta Teachers’ Association v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) (”Wright“), pending litigation on the issue of timing currently before the Supreme Court of Canada (”SCC”) prevented the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench from dealing with the timing issue; see the “Supreme Court hears Alberta Privacy Case” post commenting on ATA News v Information and Privacy Commissioner, 2010 ABCA 26 (”ATA News“). Nevertheless, since timing was raised again as an issue in Wright, the outcome of the SCC decision in ATA News will be important.

(more…)

PDF version: Court of Appeal grants relief from forfeiture in an oil and gas lease case 

Case commented on: Canpar Holdings Ltd. v. Petrobank Energy and Resources Ltd., 2011 ABCA 62

The principal significance of this case is that it confirms that the Court may relieve against the forfeiture of an oil and gas lease that is terminated for cause (in this case failing to calculate and tender royalties as prescribed by the lease) - as opposed to termination in accordance with its own terms (e.g. for failure to drill or produce), in which case there can be no relief. In granting relief the Court signals that it will draw guidance from non-oil and gas cases dealing with relief from forfeiture. I think that this is the first reported decision in which the Court of Appeal has exercised its discretion to relieve against forfeiture in an oil and gas lease case.

(more…)

PDF version: Mandatory Retirement Issue for Air Canada Pilots Has Taken Flight Again 

Case considered: Air Canada Pilots Association v Kelly, 2011 FC 120 (”Kelly“)

In 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (”Tribunal”) ruled in favour of Robert (Neil) Kelly and George Vilven, two Air Canada Pilots who had challenged their mandatory retirement at age 60. See my post on “Pilot from Airdrie is Successful in Mandatory Retirement Case.” The Tribunal in that case - Vilven v Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association; Kelly v Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association, 2009 CHRT 24 (Vilven and Kelly) - ruled that the mandatory retirement provisions in the airline’s collective agreement with the Air Canada Pilot’s Association (”ACPA”) (as protected under s. 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (”CHRA”)) violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (”Charter“) and could not be saved by s. 1 of the Charter. In 2011, the Federal Court agreed with the Tribunal’s decision on the Charter issue (see Kelly, paras. 50 to 351). In a decision on the remedy (2010 CHRT 27), the Tribunal ordered Air Canada to reinstate Kelly and Vilven and to compensate them for lost income. (more…)

PDF version: The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s Marriage Commissioners Decision – the never-ending fight for human rights of same-sex couples  

Case and Legislation commented on: In the Matter of Marriage Commissioners Appointed under the Marriage Act, SS 1995, c M-4.1, 2001 SKCA 3; Marriage Act, RSA 2000, c M-5.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal considered two proposed amendments to the Marriage Act, S.S. 1995, c. M-4.1. The Act legislates on the solemnization of marriage in Saskatchewan. It provides for specific religious officials and marriage commissioners to solemnize marriages. The Lieutenant Governor in Council in Saskatchewan sought the Court’s opinion on potentially amending the Marriage Act after complaints from marriage commissioners who said that solemnizing same-sex marriages breached their rights under s.2(a) of the Charter. (more…)

PDF version: Supreme Court Broadly Interprets s. 99(1) of the National Energy Board Act 

Case considered: Smith v Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7

In Smith v Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7 (Smith) all nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed a broad view of the power of the federal Pipeline Arbitration Committee (PAC) established under the National Energy Board Act, RSC 1985 c N-7 (NEBA) to award costs to a claimant to an arbitration proceeding. Committee costs may include solicitor-client costs of related litigation. The Court grounded its finding in subsection 99(1) of the NEBA, which if triggered requires a company to pay “all legal, appraisal and other costs determined by the Committee to have been reasonably incurred by that person in asserting that person’s claim for compensation,” and in the history of statutory reform of the law of expropriation, specifically the principle of full compensation for expropriation. The Court was silent on the Federal Court of Appeal finding that matters for which a committee may award compensation are restricted by section 84 of the NEBA, under which litigation costs are not compensable (Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v Smith, 2009 FCA 110 at para. 55 (Smith FCA)). The impact of Smith may be limited to cases in which compensation awarded by the committee exceeds 85 percent of the value offered by the company, as the statutory basis for the Court’s decision is subsection 99(1), and the subsection is triggered only where the 85 percent threshold is exceeded.

(more…)

Case considered: Information and Privacy Commissioner v. Alberta Teachers’ Association, an appeal from 2010 ABCA 26

Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal in Information and Privacy Commissioner v. Alberta Teachers’ Association, an appeal from 2010 ABCA 26. For a comment on the Court of Appeal decision, see Court of Appeal Decision on Privacy Process Likely to Have Significant Impact on Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner. Here is a summary of the case from the SCC’s website: “Ten individuals complained to the Office of the appellant Information and Privacy Commissioner that the respondent Alberta Teachers’ Association disclosed, in contravention of the Personal Information Protection Act, S.A. 2003, c. P 6.5, their personal information by publishing their names and other information about them in a publication called the “ATA News”. The adjudicator found that the Association had disclosed the complainants’ personal information contrary to ss. 7 and 19 of the Act. On judicial review, the adjudicator’s decision was quashed on the basis that the Commissioner lost jurisdiction for failing to comply with the time lines set out in s. 50(5) of the Act. The Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, upheld that decision.” The issues raised in the case include: Whether it is appropriate for a court, on judicial review, to review a matter that has not been decided by the tribunal at first instance? What consequences ought to flow when a tribunal breaches a statutorily imposed time line?

PDF version: Interim Costs and Access to Justice at the Supreme Court of Canada 

Case considered: R. v. Caron, 2011 SCC 5

The Supreme Court recently upheld the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Caron, 2009 ABCA 34. That decision affirmed the jurisdiction of a superior court to award interim costs for public interest litigation before the provincial court, and found that Caron’s language rights challenge was an appropriate one in which to order interim costs pursuant to the test in British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371 (Okanagan). The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous (with a majority judgment by Justice Ian Binnie and a concurring judgment by Justice Rosalie Abella), and was welcomed by groups such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). The CCLA had intervened in the case along with a number of other public interest groups, indicating some anxiety that entitlement to interim costs awards as originally set out in Okanagan may be further restricted by the Supreme Court, a restriction it commenced in Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue), 2007 SCC 2, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 38 (Little Sisters (No.2)).

(more…)

PDF version: The continuing mystery of standing at the Energy Resources Conservation Board 

Case considered: West Energy/Daylight Energy - Section 39 review hearing re: Linda McGinn, 2011 ABERCB 002

A couple weeks ago on ABlawg I suggested that the law governing standing to contest an energy project in front of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) is becoming unglued (see The problem of costs at the Energy Resources Conservation Board: Leave to appeal granted in Kelly #4).The first change came out of the Court of Appeal’s October 2009 decision in Kelly v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board, 2009 ABCA 349, (and see The Problem of Locus Standi at the Energy Resources Conservation Board: A Diceyan Solution). The Court of Appeal has subsequently granted two leave applications made by Susan Kelly that concern the interpretation of sections 26 and 28 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act (ERCA), R.S.A. 2000, c. E-10. These additional appeals have yet to be heard, but I am certain the Court’s ruling in both matters will result in further changes to the law concerning who must be heard at the ERCB. The ERCB’s recent standing ruling in West Energy/Daylight Energy Section 39 Review Decision, 2011 ABERCB 002 suggests to me that the Board has lost its way on how to apply section 26(2) of the ERCA.

(more…)