Month: March 2008 Page 2 of 3

The Death of Constitutional Exemptions? Alberta RCMP Officer Sentenced to Mandatory Four Years for Manslaughter with a Firearm

The death of 23 year old Darren Varley in the custody of the RCMP in Pincher Creek made headlines in October 1999. Varley was shot by an RCMP officer, Constable Michael Ferguson, who was charged with second-degree murder but eventually convicted by a jury of the lesser offence of manslaughter after a four week trial in 2004 (2 earlier trials having resulted in hung juries). Justice G.C. Hawco of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench granted Ferguson a constitutional exemption from s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code, which imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of four years for manslaughter with a firearm, and granted a conditional sentence of two years less one day (2004 ABQB 928). The Crown appealed, and a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal held that the mandatory minimum sentence could not be avoided (2006 ABCA 261). Constable Ferguson appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which dismissed his appeal on February 29, 2008.

Drug Testing: A Wake-up Call to the Courts

By David Corry

On March 13, 2008

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2007 ABCA 426

PDF Version: Drug Testing: A Wake-up Call to the Courts

Does it take the Hinton train disaster, the sinking of the Exxon Valdez and the sinking of the Queen of the North to send human rights commissions and the courts a wake-up call? In all of these tragedies, the crews responsible were under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Yet, until the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Kellogg, Brown & Root, the courts had elevated casual drug users to a protected minority group under the guise of human rights legislation.

A Note on Integrity in Treaty-Making & Copyright Law

By Greg Hagen

On March 11, 2008

In Intellectual Property, International Law

PDF Version: A Note on Integrity in Treaty-Making & Copyright Law

In the William Howard Lecture delivered at the University of Calgary on February 8th, 2008, Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry of the Government of Canada, spoke about the virtue of integrity in regulating greenhouse gases. He noted that “[i]t takes integrity to strike the right balance and to draw the lines that will eventually become law which our industries will comply with.” Prentice is also the lead Minister responsible for copyright. So, while Prentice used environmental legislation to illustrate his point about striking the right balance, it was not lost on the audience that the integrity of legislators and the legislative process is also relevant to striking the right balance between copyrights and other values.

Not on Their Backs: Cap on Damages for Soft Tissue Injuries Struck Down; Court Denies Stay of Remedy Pending Appeal

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 10, 2008

In Constitutional, Insurance Law

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Not on Their Backs: Cap on Damages for Soft Tissue Injuries Struck Down; Court Denies Stay of Remedy Pending Appeal

Cases Commented On: Morrow v Zhang, 2008 ABQB 125, Morrow v Zhang and Pedersen v Thournout, 2008 ABQB 98

On February 8, 2008, Associate Chief Justice Neil Wittmann of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench struck down the $4000 cap on non-pecuniary damages for soft tissue injuries incurred in motor vehicle accidents. The cap was imposed in October 2004 via the Minor Injury Regulation, Alta. Reg. 123/2004 (“the MIR”). Justice Wittman’s decision quickly became an election issue, with leaders of Alberta’s major parties each staking out their territory on auto insurance. Premier Stelmach announced that the government would seek a stay of the ruling pending an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. Liberal leader Kevin Taft countered that a Liberal government would not appeal the decision, and NDP leader Brian Mason used the opportunity to advocate for a public auto insurance system. On February 25, 2008, Justice Wittmann denied the stay application. This means that his original ruling, which struck down the cap without providing time for the government to amend the MIR, takes immediate effect.

The Shotgun Approach to Judicial Review

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On March 10, 2008

In Administrative Law, Provincial Court

Cases Considered: Weir v. Canada (Registrar of Firearms), 2008 ABPC 18, Woodcock v. Canada (Registrar of Firearms), 2008 ABPC 19

PDF Version: The Shotgun Approach to Judicial Review

These two almost identical judgments of Provincial Court Judge Bruce R. Fraser confirmed refusals by the Registrar to issue registration certificates for prohibited weapons. They were both references made pursuant to section 74 of the Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39. The standard of the review to be conducted by a provincial court judge in such a reference has been a controversial matter. Various methods for selecting the appropriate standard of review in a section 74 reference have been proposed and implemented by Alberta courts. The jurisprudence thus far suggests this shotgun approach is missing the mark when it comes to standard of review.