PDF version:  A Vote for R. v. Kapp as the Leading Equality Case of the Past Decade

R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 is my nominee for the most significant case of the Aughts decade in the equality rights area. Kapp was destined to be a landmark case, if only because it involved the first direct challenge on the enumerated ground of race under the Charter’s equality guarantee that was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, because the Court used Kapp as a vehicle to substantially and substantively revise its approach to section 15 claims, the decision is even more significant.

(more…)

PDF version: ABlawg’s Top Cases and Legal Developments from the 2000s, and a Vote for Dunmore

It is the first month of a new year, and the first year of a new decade. Hence, it is a time for lists. Rolling Stone magazine has opined on the top albums, songs and movies of the 2000s, and the Globe and Mail has weighed in on the top 10 nation builders of the last decade. On the legal front, the Globe also lists the top trials of the decade in Canada as well as internationally. The Court has compiled some statistics on the Supreme Court’s output over the 2000s, and plans its own series of posts on the top judgments of the last decade.

Here at ABlawg, some of our bloggers will be writing about the case or legal development they think was most important from the 2000s. Other bloggers will be compiling top ten lists within particular areas of law. In keeping with the focus of ABlawg, our contributions will be linked to the impact the cases or legal developments have had in this province.

My own pick for a case of significance is Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016. Dunmore was hailed for its recognition that the Charter may impose positive obligations on government. In this case, the obligation arose in the context of including agricultural workers within labour relations legislation as an aspect of freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter. While Dunmore hedged on the issue of whether the government had a duty to include protections for collective bargaining, it opened the door for the Court’s later finding that there was such a duty in Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391.

(more…)

Case considered: Morrow v. Zhang, 2009 ABCA 215, leave to appeal dismissed by S.C.C. December 17, 2009

PDF version:  Supreme Court denies equality claimants leave to appeal insurance cap

The Supreme Court has denied Peari Morrow and Brea Pederson leave to appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the province’s cap on non-pecuniary damages for soft tissue injuries incurred in motor vehicle accidents. Previous posts on ABlawg critiqued the Court of Appeal decision for (1) failing to apply the new approach to equality rights set down in R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, (2) improperly applying the old approach to equality rights from Law v. Canada, Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497, (3) giving insufficient weight to evidence of stereotyping in relation to victims of minor tissue injuries, and (4) giving too much weight to the purpose of the law at the expense of its effects on those victims (see Some Questions about the Decision to Reinstate the Cap on Damages for Soft Tissue Injuries and More Questions about the Decision to Reinstate the Cap on Damages for Soft Tissue Injuries).

(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: 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…)

Cases considered:  Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37

PDF version:  Motion for Re-hearing of Hutterian Brethren Case Dismissed by Supreme Court of Canada

On October 15, 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada denied a motion to re-hear the case of Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37. In that case, a majority of the Supreme Court denied the Hutterian Brethren’s claim that its members should be exempted from provincial photo requirements for driver’s licences based on freedom of religion. The Supreme Court did not provide any reasons for its decision, stating only as follows in a news release:

(more…)

Case considered: R. v. Cunningham, 2008 YKCA 7

PDF version: Unhappy differences arise in R. v. Cunningham

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.)).

(more…)

Case considered: R. v. Caron, 2009 ABCA 34, leave granted by SCC August 27, 2009

The Supreme Court of Canada has released its decision on the Alberta government’s leave to appeal application in R. v. Caron.  Chief Justice McLachlin and Justices Abella and Rothstein granted the government’s leave application (without costs). As is typical in such matters, no reasons for decision were given.  The case concerns an interim costs award that was granted to Caron to help fund his language rights challenge against Alberta legislation. As noted in a previous post, Caron was granted an interim costs award by Justice V.O. Ouellette of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in October 2007.  This award was upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal in January 2009.  In the meantime, Caron’s language rights challenge was successful after his Provincial Court trial, and this matter is now under appeal. Regardless of the outcome of the language rights challenge, the interim costs matter is a critical issue for access to justice.  The Alberta Court of Appeal held that interim costs awards are available in quasi-criminal matters before provincial courts, and it is expected that this will be one of the government’s grounds for appeal.  ABlawg will report on future developments in the case.

Cases Considered: Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37

 PDF version: Security Trumps Freedom of Religion for Hutterite Drivers

The Supreme Court of Canada’s long awaited decision on whether Hutterites can be forced to have their photographs taken to obtain a driver’s licence was released on July 24, 2009. Reversing the judgments of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeal, a majority of the Supreme Court finds that the violation of freedom of religion caused by the photo requirement is justifiable under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This comment will argue that the majority’s decision, especially its failure to find a duty to accommodate on the part of the government, sets the protection of Charter rights back several years.

(more…)