Category Archives: Civil Procedure and Evidence

Consequences of being an OPCA Litigant?

Posted on May 10, 2013 by and

PDF version: Consequences of being an OPCA Litigant? Case commented on: ANB v Hancock, 2013 ABQB 97. ANB v Hancock is Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke’s second written judgment about an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigant. As summarized … Continue reading →

Posted in Civil Procedure and Evidence | Leave a comment

A Rather Quick Response to a Rather Typical Vexatious Litigant

Posted on April 16, 2013 by

PDF version: A Rather Quick Response to a Rather Typical Vexatious Litigant Case commented on: Onischuk v Alberta, 2013 ABQB 89 The prominent September 2012 decision of Court of Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke in Meads v … Continue reading →

Posted in Civil Procedure and Evidence | 5 Comments

Supreme Court Renders Leave to Appeal Decisions in Several Alberta Cases

Posted on April 15, 2013 by

PDF version: Supreme Court Renders Leave to Appeal Decisions in Several Alberta Cases Cases Considered: R v Mack, 2012 ABCA 42, leave to appeal granted, April 11, 2013 (SCC); Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1 v Joint Review Panel, 2012 … Continue reading →

Posted in Aboriginal, Administrative Law, Civil Procedure and Evidence, Criminal, Supreme Court of Canada | Leave a comment

What has Meads v Meads wrought?

Posted on April 8, 2013 by and

PDF version: What has Meads v Meads wrought? Cases commented on: R v Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160 (CanLII); R v Tyskerud, 2013 BCPC 27 (CanLII); Cassa v The Queen, 2013 TCC 43 (CanLII); R v Martin, 2012 NSPC 115 (CanLII); R … Continue reading →

Posted in Civil Procedure and Evidence, Ethics and the Legal Profession | 5 Comments

The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case

Posted on October 30, 2012 by

PDF version: The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case Case Commented on: Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571  This decision by Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke was the subject of much media attention when it was released. That … Continue reading →

Posted in Civil Procedure and Evidence, Family | 6 Comments

JSS BARRISTERS RULES

Posted on March 7, 2012 by

Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP is pleased to provide summaries of recent Court Decisions which consider the Alberta Rules of Court and comment on the application of the new Rules. JSS BARRISTERS RULES provides a convenient overview of how … Continue reading →

Posted in Civil Procedure and Evidence | Leave a comment

“The proof of the pudding is in the eating” that litigation is not the best way to quantify interim costs.

Posted on January 11, 2012 by

PDF version: “The proof of the pudding is in the eating” that litigation is not the best way to quantify interim costs. Case considered: R v Caron, 2011 ABCA 385 Gilles Caron has been a very present figure before the … Continue reading →

Posted in Access to Justice, Civil Procedure and Evidence, Constitutional | 1 Comment

Cost Decision from Canadian Human Rights Commission Case: Implications for Albertans

Posted on November 29, 2011 by

PDF version: Cost Decision from Canadian Human Rights Commission Case: Implications for Albertans  Decision considered: Canadian Human Rights Commission v Canada (AG), 2011 SCC 53 (“Mowat“) The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision about costs in the Mowat case was … Continue reading →

Posted in Access to Justice, Civil Procedure and Evidence, Human Rights | Leave a comment

How persistent does a vexatious litigant have to be?

Posted on July 27, 2011 by

PDF version:  How persistent does a vexatious litigant have to be? Case considered: Wong v Giannacopoulos, 2011 ABCA 206 Are the 2007 vexatious litigant provisions in the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, being overused? Is it too easy to have … Continue reading →

Posted in Civil Procedure and Evidence | 5 Comments

“Amended Amended Redacted Document” Ordered Released to the Press and Public Fifteen Days after Judgment

Posted on July 20, 2011 by

 PDF version: “Amended Amended Redacted Document” Ordered Released to the Press and Public Fifteen Days after Judgment Case considered: Globe & Mail v Alberta, 2011 ABQB 363 (“Globe and Mail“) When the police want to obtain a search warrant, they … Continue reading →

Posted in Civil Procedure and Evidence, Privacy | Leave a comment