LL.M. (Yale), LL.B. (Toronto), B.A. (Toronto)
Assistant Professor, University of Calgary, Faculty of Law
Member of the Alberta Bar
Professor Woolley joined the University of Calgary Faculty of Law on July 1, 2004. Prior to joining the Faculty she practiced law in Calgary, specializing in energy regulation, judicial review and civil litigation. In 1995-1996 Professor Woolley was a law clerk to the then Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer. In 1994 Professor Woolley received both the Gold Medal and the Dean’s Key from the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto.
Professor Woolley’s research and teaching interests are in the areas of legal ethics, the legal profession, energy regulation and administrative law.
Those who follow sports know that some of the most fun you can have with your clothes on is debating the criteria for selecting the league MVP. Is it the best player, considered apart from the success (or ineptitude) of his team? Is it the player who contributed the most to the accomplishments of a successful team effort? Is it a particular type of contribution that matters - e.g., exceptional individual skill or above average skills combined with exceptional leadership? Or is it some more holistic determination, considering a variety of factors in a balance which is incapable of articulation beyond “I know it when I see it?”
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.
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).
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.
Last week the Federation of Law Societies issued the “Final Report” of its Task Force on the Canadian Common Law Degree. The Final Report is the third document issued by the Task Force, the first being an initial Consultation Paper in September 2008, the second being its Interim Report issued in March 2009.
On November 17, 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada will hear argument in R. v. Cunningham, an appeal of a judgment by the Yukon Territory Court of Appeal released June 25, 2008. If the Court upholds the YKCA decision in Cunningham it would change the law in many other Canadian provinces, including Alberta (R. v. D.D.C., (1996) 43 Alta. L.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), generally referred to as Ferguson), Saskatchewan (Mireau v. Canada et al., (1995) 128 Sask. R. 142 (C.A.)), Manitoba (R. v. M.B.D., 2003 MBCA 116) and Ontario (R. v. Chatwell, (1998) 38 O.R. (3d) 32 (C.A.)).
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.
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.
For a recent session of the Canadian Bar Association’s administrative law sub-section we reviewed Alberta Court of Appeal decisions with respect to the use of Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 from May 2008 to May 2009. Here we share some preliminary analysis from our findings.
In an earlier post (Conflicting Interests, Conflicting Judgments and the Ethical Obligations of Lawyers and Judges) I commented on Justice Alan Macleod’s dismissal in part of Lawrence Hughes’ lawsuit against Shane Brady and David Gnam. Mr. Hughes’ lawsuit was brought in his capacity as the Administrator ad litem of the estate of his daughter Bethany Hughes, who died of cancer in 2002. Bethany Hughes was a mature minor and had been raised as a Jehovah’s Witness. Ms. Hughes sought to resist blood transfusions necessary for the treatment of her cancer. She was unsuccessful in doing so because it was found by Justice Adele Kent that she had been subject to undue influence from those around her, such that she could not make an independent and informed choice about the matter (B.H. (Next friend of) v. Alberta (Director of Child Welfare), 2002 ABQB 371). Mr. Hughes’ lawsuit was based on a number of allegations against Mr. Gnam, Mr. Brady, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada and others. Mr. Hughes alleged, inter alia, that Mr. Gnam and Mr. Brady had been in an improper conflict of interest in their representation of Ms. Hughes and that they had violated obligations of confidentiality owed to her.
