University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Month: March 2008

The Doctrine of Part Performance: Still Strict After All These Years

By

On March 4, 2008

In Property

Cases Considered: Varma v. Donaldson, 2008 ABQB 106

PDF Version: The Doctrine of Part Performance: Still Strict After All These Years

This was an application under section 141 of the Land Titles Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-4 for the discharge of a caveat registered against a rental property in Calgary. The owners of the property in this case were Mr. and Mrs. Varma. The caveator was their daughter, Ms. Donaldson. She claimed she had an interest in the rental property under an agreement for its purchase and sale made between herself and her parents. Master K.R. Laycock disagreed and ordered that her caveat be discharged.

Read More

What does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have to do with Oil and Gas Development in Alberta?

By

On March 4, 2008

In Constitutional, Natural Resources

Cases Considered: Kelly v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 52

PDF Version: What does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have to do with Oil and Gas Development in Alberta?

This is not the first time that section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) has been raised on an application for leave to appeal a decision of Alberta’s Energy and Utilities Board (EUB). It is, however, the first time that a justice of the Court of Appeal has put the issue squarely before the court. Can the granting of a licence by the EUB (now the ERCB) for a particular oil and gas well violate rights protected by section 7 of the Charter? Is it possible that the environmental risks and hazards of a particular oil and gas operation may be such as to trigger the protection of section 7 of the Charter? Mr. Justice J.A. Berger has said that this is arguable. In doing so, he has placed some difficult issues, with potentially far-reaching consequences, before the Court.

Read More

Counsel Shall Not Bear Witness: Clarifying the Obligation of Counsel to Withdraw When Required to be a Witness

By

On March 4, 2008

In Ethics and the Legal Profession, Family

Cases Considered: Toliver v. Koepke, 2008 ABQB 37

PDF Version: Counsel Shall Not Bear Witness: Clarifying the Obligation of Counsel to Withdraw When Required to be a Witness

During divorce litigation the Plaintiff and Defendant disputed the existence of a settlement respecting distribution of matrimonial property. The dispute was directed for trial by Justice Moreau of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, at which point counsel for the Defendant (who was newly appointed and therefore had not been involved in discussions related to the settlement) brought an application to remove counsel for the Plaintiff. The application was brought on the grounds that Plaintiff’s counsel was a potential witness at the trial of the settlement issue. Justice Eric Macklin of the Court of Queen’s Bench granted the application.

Read More

“www.JustAnswer.com… or How the Alberta Courts Respected the Market Surveillance Administrator’s Just Exercise of Jurisdiction”

By

On March 3, 2008

In Energy

Cases Considered: Alberta (Market Surveillance Administrator) v. Enmax Energy Corporation 2008 ABQB 54

PDF Version: “www.JustAnswer.com… or How the Alberta Courts Respected the Market Surveillance Administrator’s Just Exercise of Jurisdiction”

Regulation of the functioning of the market for electricity poses difficulties.  The price for electricity in Alberta is determined through the mechanism of the Power Pool on an hourly basis.  Generators bid the electricity they will have available for dispatch into the Power Pool during a given hour, and the Power Pool selects electricity in merit order (from the lowest price bid to the highest price bid) as required to meet demand in that hour.  The price of electricity in each hour is the level of the highest bid of the last unit of electricity required to meet demand in that hour.  Every in merit generator in that hour is then paid at that price, regardless of the level of the bid initially made by that generator.

Read More

Fading to Brown: Limits on Evergreen Discovery in Alberta

By

On March 3, 2008

In Civil Procedure, Ethics and the Legal Profession

Case Considered: Dabrowski v. Robertson, 2007 ABQB 680

PDF Version: Fading to Brown: Limits on Evergreen Discovery in Alberta

This decision by Madam Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench clarifies that counsel and parties to litigation in Alberta do not currently have an obligation to provide “evergreen” oral discovery. Counsel may have an obligation to disclose “after-acquired information” if it is requested by opposing counsel, and may have an obligation to correct misleading evidence provided by a witness. However, neither of those obligations requires them or their clients to disclose that the witness’s evidence at trial will be different from that given at discovery because the witness’s memory of events has now improved. The case also clarifies that while the Law Society remains the “best authority on compliance by its members with its Code of Professional Conduct,” “a lawyer’s ethical responsibility exists at common law, independently of any Code of Conduct” (para. 22 and 26).

Read More

Page 3 of 3

Previous

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén