Monthly Archives: February 2008

Two cases concerning the Statute of Frauds (1677, U.K.)

Cases Considered: Leoppky v. Meston, 2008 ABQB 45, Wasylyshyn v. Wasylyshyn, 2008 ABQB 39

PDF Version: Two cases concerning the Statute of Frauds (1677, U.K.)

A statute enacted over 350 years ago by a Parliament sitting in London, England was the basis of two decisions of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench handed down the week of January 21, 2008. The decision of Madam Justice D.C. Read in Leoppky v. Meston, 2008 ABQB 45, was released January 17. The decision of Mr. Justice E.A. Marshall in Wasylyshyn v. Wasylyshyn, 2008 ABQB 39, was released January 18.

Continue reading →

The Standard of Review on Appeals of Masters’ Decisions to the Court of Queen’s Bench

Cases Considered: Canada (Attorney General) v. Chak, 2008 ABQB 103

PDF Version: The Standard of Review on Appeals of Masters’ Decisions to the Court of Queen’s Bench

Canada (Attorney General) v. Chak appears to be the first written decision by our former colleague, Keith Yamauchi, who was appointed to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta on December 14, 2007. That fact alone might make it worthy of a comment here. However, within his decision concerning a rather mundane student loan collection matter, the Honourable Mr. Justice K.D. Yamauchi also raises one interesting point.

Continue reading →

City Amends Land Use Bylaw in Bad Faith

Cases Considered: Airport Self Storage and R.V. Centre Ltd. v. Leduc (City), 2008 ABQB 12

PDF Version: City Amends Land Use Bylaw in Bad Faith

Although municipal councils in Alberta are generally entitled to amend land use bylaws by following procedures set out in the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”), R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, this decision tells us that sometimes a council will have to go further in order to ensure procedural fairness. There are circumstances where personalized written notice of a hearing to consider a proposed land use amendment will be required. As always, the content of the duty of fairness varies according to the particular facts of each case. The facts here are lengthy, but they are critical.

Continue reading →

Canada Safeway’s Charter Right to Freedom of Expression Not Violated by Privacy Legislation When it Reported Co-op Employee’s Unique Shopping Methods

Cases Considered: Canada Safeway Limited v. Shineton, 2007 ABQB 773

PDF Version: Canada Safeway’s Charter Right to Freedom of Expression Not Violated by Privacy Legislation When it Reported Co-op Employee’s Unique Shopping Methods

In a judicial review of a decision of Alberta’s Privacy Commissioner, Canada Safeway put forward a very interesting (yet ultimately unsuccessful) argument as a defence to a complaint that it breached a person’s privacy; Safeway argued that s. 7 (1)(d) of the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”), S.A. 2003, c. P-6.5 violated its right to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) s. 2(b).

Continue reading →

Security for Costs on Appeals by Impecunious and Vexatious Litigants

Cases Considered: Opal v. White, 2008 ABCA 25

PDF Version: Security for Costs on Appeals by Impecunious and Vexatious Litigants

The very short judgment of Mr. Justice Frans Slatter in Opal v. White is an unlikely candidate for a comment. It is barely more than a page – a scant seven paragraphs – and it cites neither rules nor precedents in deciding three applications for security for costs. Nevertheless, the judgment’s treatment of the issue of security for costs on an appeal of an order declaring the appellant to be a vexatious litigant is noteworthy.

Continue reading →