Cases Considered: Searles v.
Government compensation payable to physicians in
Month: June 2008
Cases Considered: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v.
In 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the then Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (“Board”) (now the Alberta Utilities Commission (“Commission”)) had no jurisdiction to allocate proceeds of disposition on the sale of a utility asset, even to ameliorate harm to customers that might arise from that sale. The Court held that while the Board has some jurisdiction to impose conditions on the sale of an asset – to, for example, give “due consideration to any new economic data anticipated as a result of the sale” (ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board) 2006 SCC 4 at para. 81 (“AGPL”)) – that power did not allow the Board to “confiscate” any net gains enjoyed by a utility upon disposition.
Cases Considered: Johnston v.
PDF Version: Disinterment of RCMP Officer may proceed despite parents’ wishes
In a previous post, I reviewed a number of decisions of the
Case Considered: Brentech Services Ltd. v. Sunray Manufacturing Inc., 2008 ABQB 301
PDF Version: Something Happened (with apologies to Joseph Heller)
“Want of prosecution” is a curious and old-fashioned phrase. It refers to an absence of steps taken in a court action by the person who started the lawsuit. It is an allegation and finding of indefensible and excessive delay in carrying a lawsuit through to its conclusion.
Cases Considered: Director of the
In the May 29, 2008 version of his S.C.C. L@wletter Eugene Meehan reports that the Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the application of the Director of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission for leave to appeal in the case of Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company (at the time of writing the SCC’s decision on leave to appeal is not yet available on its website). For posts on the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in this case, see Linda McKay Panos, “Court of Appeal Sends Court of Queen’s Bench Decision to Rehab” and David Corry, “Drug Testing: A Wake-up Call to the Courts”. Linda and David disagreed about the correctness of the Alberta Court of Appeal’s approach, which overturned the decision of Madam Justice Sheilah Martin and upheld the position of the employer. It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court will not take advantage of the opportunity to clarify the law in this area. This leaves it uncertain for employers, employees and human rights tribunals whether perceived addiction to alcohol and drugs is covered by human rights legislation, and in what circumstances employers are entitled to implement drug and alcohol testing policies without running afoul of human rights legislation.