July 2008 – Page 2

Another stay of judgment denied in the challenge to Alberta’s cap on damages for soft tissue injuries

The latest judgment in the constitutional challenge to Alberta’s $4,000 cap on non-pecuniary damages for soft tissue injuries incurred in motor vehicle accidents was handed down on June 27, 2008 by Madam Justice Patricia Rowbotham of the Alberta Court of Appeal. State Farm Insurance Company, the insurer of the defendant in the personal injury action, had applied for a stay of the February 8, 2008 judgment of Associate Chief Justice Neil Wittmann. He had declared the Minor Injury Regulation, Alta. Reg. 124/2004 (MIR) unconstitutional, thus ending the $4,000 cap. See Morrow v. Zhang, 2008 ABQB 98 and the previous post on this judgment by Jennifer Koshan, “Not on Their Backs: Cap on Damages for Soft Tissue Injuries Struck Down; Court Denies Stay of Remedy Pending Appeal.” Justice Rowbotham denied State Farm’s application.

A Textbook First Year Property Law Case on the Fraud Exception to Indefeasibility

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On July 8, 2008

In Property

Cases Considered: 1198952 Alberta Ltd. v. 1356472 Alberta Ltd., 2008 ABQB 386

PDF Version: A Textbook First Year Property Law Case on the Fraud Exception to Indefeasibility

ALM Holdings Ltd. owned the Jasper Block, which is part of the Edmonton Historic Resource Management Program . It is a three storey Edwardian-era brick building on the north side of Jasper Avenue in central downtown Edmonton. 651730 Alberta Ltd. rented a part of the Jasper Block for a restaurant, the Fantasia Noodle House Restaurant. 1198952 Alberta Ltd. rented another part of the Jasper Block for a store, called Raleigh Foods. ALM sold the Jasper Block to 135647 Alberta Ltd. The question in this case was whether or not the purchaser, 135647 Alberta Ltd., was bound by ALM’s leases to the Noodle House and Raleigh Foods. The tenants sought a declaration from the court that the purchaser’s title to the Jasper Block was subject to their leases. The purchaser sought an order forcing the Noodle House and Raleigh Foods to vacate their premises in the Jasper Block.

What Happens When the Deep Rights You Just Purchased are being Drained by the Vendor’s Shallow Rights Well?

By Nigel Bankes

On July 4, 2008

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Nexxtep Resources Ltd. v. Talisman Energy Inc et al, 2007 ABQB 788; aff’d 2008 ABCA 246

PDF Version: What happens when the deep rights you just purchased are being drained by the vendor’s shallow rights well?

What happens when a purchaser obtains the deep rights under certain oil and gas leases (along with a producing horizontal well) and the parties exclude another vertical well on the basis that it is producing from the shallow rights retained by the vendor and later the purchaser forms the view that the well is producing from the deep rights and not the shallow rights? That is the issue on the merits in Nexxtep – barring disagreements as to just where the vertical well was producing from. At present the case is reported only on certain preliminary matters, Nexxtep’s request for an injunction and Talisman’s request for summary judgment.

Month: July 2008

Another stay of judgment denied in the challenge to Alberta’s cap on damages for soft tissue injuries

A Textbook First Year Property Law Case on the Fraud Exception to Indefeasibility

What Happens When the Deep Rights You Just Purchased are being Drained by the Vendor’s Shallow Rights Well?