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

Month: April 2008

International Commercial Arbitration: Too Costly Private Justice?

Cases Considered: Resin Systems Inc. v. Industrial Service & Machine Inc., 2008 ABCA 104

PDF Version: International Commercial Arbitration: Too Costly Private Justice?

The Court of Appeal’s Memorandum of Judgment in Resin Systems Inc. v. Industrial Service & Machine Inc. offers a rare, albeit small, glimpse into the arena of international commercial arbitration. It tells us something about the cost of this type of private justice; one of the major differences between courts and arbitration is that contractual arbitrators are not paid for by taxpayers, but are privately paid for. The judgment also illustrates an unusual lack of deference to arbitration on the part of the Court of Appeal and a lack of faith in an arbitrator’s ability to control the fairness and efficiency of arbitration proceedings through the allocation of costs.

Stay Of Interim Funding Denied In Language Rights Case

Cases Considered: R. v. Caron, 2008 ABCA 111

PDF Version: Stay Of Interim Funding Denied In Language Rights Case

In October 2007, Gilles Caron was awarded interim costs by Mr. Justice V.O. Ouellette of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in relation to legal fees for a language rights claim (see here). This case was the subject of an earlier comment on ABlawg. On March 19, 2008, Justice Keith Ritter of the Alberta Court of Appeal denied the Crown’s application for a stay of the interim costs order pending appeal.

Calgary Bar Cannot Discriminate on the Basis of Race or Religion

Cases Considered: Jaspal Randhawa v. Tequila Bar & Grill Ltd. o/a Tequila Nightclub (March 17, 2008 Alta. H.R.P. Diane Colley-Urquhart, Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Calgary Bar Cannot Discriminate on the Basis of Race or Religion 

The Alberta Human Rights Panel (“Panel”) recently joined human rights commissions in other provinces in addressing an all too common complaint—racial discrimination by a popular restaurant or bar. Mr. Jaspal Randhawa complained when he was denied entry into Calgary’s Tequila Bar and Grill Ltd. (“Tequila”) on July 9, 2004.  Tequila’s manager, Mr. Harry Dimitriadis, was the respondent.  Mr. Randhawa complained that he was denied goods, services and accommodation on the grounds of ancestry, race and religious beliefs, contrary to s.4 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (“HRCMA”), R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14.

Supreme Court denies leave to appeal in Real Estate Council of Alberta v. Henderson

Cases Considered: Real Estate Council of Alberta v. Henderson, 2007 ABCA 303

On March 27, 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada denied Henderson leave to appeal. This result is not surprising given that the Alberta Court of Appeal characterized the issue in Henderson as seemingly straightforward statutory interpretation. However, the denial of leave is disappointing as the case is now an opportunity lost for judicial consideration into the merits of an administrative decision-maker impeaching its own decision.

For the original post on Henderson, click here.

Provincial Court Judges’ Professional Allowances and Judicial Independence

Cases Considered: Reilly v The Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta, 2008 ABCA 72,

PDF Version: Provincial Court Judges’ Professional Allowances and Judicial Independence

Provincial Court Judge John Reilly requested the approval of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta to use his professional allowance to attend a conference in Caux, Switzerland. The Caux conference’s focus was “Peace – Building Initiatives” and would also be attended by an Elder and three Chiefs of the Stoney Reserve. Judge Reilly’s jurisdiction includes the Stoney Reserve and he has long been interested in the administration of justice to Aboriginal peoples and the Stoney Nation in particular. All of this he set out in his request to the Chief Judge, relying upon the professional allowance established through the Provincial Court Judges and Masters in Chambers Compensation Regulation, A.R. 176/98 (“Compensation Regulation”), which reads:

Page 2 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén