Comments for ABlawg.ca http://ablawg.ca Tue, 22 May 2012 10:44:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 Comment on In forma pauperis: A Constitutional Right to Access to Justice by pg county landlord tenant court http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/12/in-forma-pauperis-a-constitutional-right-to-access-to-justice/#comment-240822 pg county landlord tenant court Fri, 11 May 2012 15:14:31 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/12/in-forma-pauperis-a-constitutional-right-to-access-to-justice/#comment-240822 Thanks for sharing about this Constitutional Right to Access to Justice. It’s been a very long read but very worth it. Thanks for sharing about this Constitutional Right to Access to Justice. It’s been a very long read but very worth it.

]]> Comment on The Unusual Appointment of an Investigator under the Condominium Property Act by Y http://ablawg.ca/2012/05/09/the-unusual-appointment-of-an-investigator-under-the-condominium-property-act/#comment-240662 Y Thu, 10 May 2012 21:18:48 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2012/05/09/the-unusual-appointment-of-an-investigator-under-the-condominium-property-act/#comment-240662 In defence of the Master, I'd point out there is good reason to think what works for a corporation may not work for a Condominium Corporation. In a corporation oppression is almost always a disputes are between investors about money. Condominium corporations are disputes between neighbors about where people they live. Such a dispute often means an owner is required to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars they don't have or leave their house. This means the power asymmetry between the board and an owner is increased, and people are far more willing to fight about principle. I've seen board become enamored with power and their ability to collect legal fees under the By-laws on a solicitor and his own client basis. Basically, an owner is usually faced with knuckling under and being bullied in her own home or fighting a lawsuit she can't afford that tears her community apart. More generally, my recollection is that Section 67 is a remedy "lifted" from B.C. and Ontario, who originally lifted the section from New Zealand, and I'm fairly certain the remedy has received treatment in all those jurisdictions. (Unfortunately, I don't think much of a distinction has played out as between condo. corps. and business corps.) In any event, I'd be curious on your thoughts on B.C's proposal to create a separate court division for these types of matters: www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012JAG0068-000600.htm. In defence of the Master, I’d point out there is good reason to think what works for a corporation may not work for a Condominium Corporation.

In a corporation oppression is almost always a disputes are between investors about money. Condominium corporations are disputes between neighbors about where people they live. Such a dispute often means an owner is required to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars they don’t have or leave their house. This means the power asymmetry between the board and an owner is increased, and people are far more willing to fight about principle. I’ve seen board become enamored with power and their ability to collect legal fees under the By-laws on a solicitor and his own client basis. Basically, an owner is usually faced with knuckling under and being bullied in her own home or fighting a lawsuit she can’t afford that tears her community apart.

More generally, my recollection is that Section 67 is a remedy “lifted” from B.C. and Ontario, who originally lifted the section from New Zealand, and I’m fairly certain the remedy has received treatment in all those jurisdictions. (Unfortunately, I don’t think much of a distinction has played out as between condo. corps. and business corps.)

In any event, I’d be curious on your thoughts on B.C’s proposal to create a separate court division for these types of matters: www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2012JAG0068-000600.htm.

]]> Comment on Where does legitimate religious expression end and hate speech begin? by Dave Colburn http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/29/where-does-legitimate-religious-expression-end-and-hate-speech-begin/#comment-239217 Dave Colburn Sat, 05 May 2012 04:53:34 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/29/where-does-legitimate-religious-expression-end-and-hate-speech-begin/#comment-239217 As Chairman of the Edmonton Public School Board, I appreciate this reasoned and well supported argument raising concerns about Mr Hunsberger's remarks. We do not need legal references to understand that creating this policy was the right thing to do. If anything, Mr Hunsberger's blog reminds us of the need for action and policy creation to strengthen supports for our sexual minority population. Moving forward but still much work to do. As Chairman of the Edmonton Public School Board, I appreciate this reasoned and well supported argument raising concerns about Mr Hunsberger’s remarks. We do not need legal references to understand that creating this policy was the right thing to do. If anything, Mr Hunsberger’s blog reminds us of the need for action and policy creation to strengthen supports for our sexual minority population. Moving forward but still much work to do.

]]> Comment on Dower Consent Teasers by Dave Laidlaw http://ablawg.ca/2012/05/03/dower-consent-teasers/#comment-239072 Dave Laidlaw Fri, 04 May 2012 17:41:49 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2012/05/03/dower-consent-teasers/#comment-239072 Sorry, to follow up, the distinction is not relevant, the judgment speaks for itself. Blacklaws v. Morrow, 2000 ABCA 175 (CanLII) "G. Conclusion [101] We would allow the main appeal in full and remove all liability from Morrow, subject to Part E on costs. And we would dismiss the cross appeal. That makes questions of damages or other remedies academic. So we will not discuss other issues argued on appeal. [102] The label “Reserved” has significance. The distinction between Memoranda of Judgment and Reserved Reasons for Judgment remains. These Reasons were circulated to all members of the Court of Appeal in accordance with the consultative process which has long been the tradition in this Court. Memoranda of Judgment are not circulated. [103] Circulated reasons for judgment have historically been called either “Reasons for Judgment” or “Reasons for Judgment Reserved”. The chosen nomenclature is not significant. What is significant is the fact that a decision is a circulated judgment, no matter what it is called. [104] Internal Court processes are irrelevant; the Court’s Notice to the Profession on this subject dated April 3, 2000 speaks for itself. Sorry, to follow up, the distinction is not relevant, the judgment speaks for itself.
Blacklaws v. Morrow, 2000 ABCA 175 (CanLII)

“G. Conclusion

[101] We would allow the main appeal in full and remove all liability from Morrow, subject to Part E on costs. And we would dismiss the cross appeal. That makes questions of damages or other remedies academic. So we will not discuss other issues argued on appeal.

[102] The label “Reserved” has significance. The distinction between Memoranda of Judgment and Reserved Reasons for Judgment remains. These Reasons were circulated to all members of the Court of Appeal in accordance with the consultative process which has long been the tradition in this Court. Memoranda of Judgment are not circulated.

[103] Circulated reasons for judgment have historically been called either “Reasons for Judgment” or “Reasons for Judgment Reserved”. The chosen nomenclature is not significant. What is significant is the fact that a decision is a circulated judgment, no matter what it is called.

[104] Internal Court processes are irrelevant; the Court’s Notice to the Profession on this subject dated April 3, 2000 speaks for itself.

]]> Comment on Dower Consent Teasers by Dave Laidlaw http://ablawg.ca/2012/05/03/dower-consent-teasers/#comment-239068 Dave Laidlaw Fri, 04 May 2012 17:17:17 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2012/05/03/dower-consent-teasers/#comment-239068 This is an Alberta Practice, it has been used in many cases ie. Lucy the Elephant etc. The Practice Direction is here: http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/ca/practicenotes/NTPmar292000.pdf This is an Alberta Practice, it has been used in many cases ie. Lucy the Elephant etc.

The Practice Direction is here:
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/ca/practicenotes/NTPmar292000.pdf

]]> Comment on Where does legitimate religious expression end and hate speech begin? by Anonymous http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/29/where-does-legitimate-religious-expression-end-and-hate-speech-begin/#comment-238162 Anonymous Tue, 01 May 2012 21:23:27 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/29/where-does-legitimate-religious-expression-end-and-hate-speech-begin/#comment-238162 Great article. I think a lot of people do not know what to think of the argument of freedom of speech vs discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This article was very helpful in understanding the issue. Great article. I think a lot of people do not know what to think of the argument of freedom of speech vs discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This article was very helpful in understanding the issue.

]]> Comment on Where does legitimate religious expression end and hate speech begin? by Anonymous http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/29/where-does-legitimate-religious-expression-end-and-hate-speech-begin/#comment-237876 Anonymous Tue, 01 May 2012 01:03:00 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/29/where-does-legitimate-religious-expression-end-and-hate-speech-begin/#comment-237876 Thank you for this. It's refreshing to hear a legal analysis of this issue. Thank you for this. It’s refreshing to hear a legal analysis of this issue.

]]> Comment on Where does legitimate religious expression end and hate speech begin? by Annie Voss-Altman http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/29/where-does-legitimate-religious-expression-end-and-hate-speech-begin/#comment-237807 Annie Voss-Altman Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:45:37 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/29/where-does-legitimate-religious-expression-end-and-hate-speech-begin/#comment-237807 What a great blog piece on recent resolutions to conflicts of rights between s. 2(a) and 15(1). Both scary and thought-provokng. Thank you. What a great blog piece on recent resolutions to conflicts of rights between s. 2(a) and 15(1). Both scary and thought-provokng. Thank you.

]]> Comment on Where does legitimate religious expression end and hate speech begin? by Brian Enns http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/29/where-does-legitimate-religious-expression-end-and-hate-speech-begin/#comment-237805 Brian Enns Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:39:24 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/29/where-does-legitimate-religious-expression-end-and-hate-speech-begin/#comment-237805 Kathleen As a former student of yours and fellow Lawyer and Albertan, I agree with and appreciate your comments. Thank you for speaking out for the rest of us. Brian Enns Kathleen

As a former student of yours and fellow Lawyer and Albertan, I agree with and appreciate your comments.

Thank you for speaking out for the rest of us.

Brian Enns

]]> Comment on The Safe Injection Site Precedent: Parliamentary Supremacy vs. Democratic Values? by Terry Paden http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/24/the-safe-injection-site-precedent-parliamentary-supremacy-vs-democratic-values/#comment-236787 Terry Paden Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:56:27 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2012/04/24/the-safe-injection-site-precedent-parliamentary-supremacy-vs-democratic-values/#comment-236787 This post was a very enjoyable read, especially the last paragraph regarding "decisions on morality rather than on best available evidence" which I hope all governments will cease practicing. It also helped me to remember why I enjoyed Kathleen Mahoney's first year Torts class so long ago. Thank you Prof. Mahoney. Terry Paden This post was a very enjoyable read, especially the last paragraph regarding “decisions on morality rather than on best available evidence” which I hope all governments will cease practicing.

It also helped me to remember why I enjoyed Kathleen Mahoney’s first year Torts class so long ago. Thank you Prof. Mahoney.

Terry Paden

]]>