May 2009 – Page 2

Case considered: Genesis Land Development Corp. v. Alberta, 2009 ABQB 221

PDF version: A rare species of tort in the Spray Valley: Abuse of public office

My work in environmental law began in the late 1990s as part of the opposition to a mountain resort proposed by a land company based in Calgary – Genesis Land Developers – to be located along the eastern boundary of Banff National Park in the Spray Valley. In the planning stages since the 1960s, this resort proposal had only partial regulatory approval by 1998 when its legal ownership was acquired by Genesis. The subsequent Genesis development proposal consisted of a four-season mountain resort in the Spray Valley, including a tour boat operation on Spray Lakes, helicopter and cat-assisted skiing on Tent Ridge, and a 400 bed accommodation facility. Of these three components, the boating operation was essentially approved when Genesis acquired ownership of the proposal. The regulatory approval process was in full swing until May 31, 2000, when the Government of Alberta announced the project would not be approved and the Spray Valley would be designated as a provincial park. This turn of events led to the current proceedings.

A Rock and a Hard Place

By Alice Woolley

On May 19, 2009

In Administrative Law, Energy

Case considered: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2009 ABCA 171

PDF version: A Rock and a Hard Place

In its 2006 decision in ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2006 SCC 4, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB, now the Alberta Utilities Commission) had no jurisdiction to allocate proceeds on the sale of a utility asset to ratepayers where the sale of that asset resulted in no harm to ratepayers in terms of either rates or service. For a bare majority of the Court, Justice Bastarache held that the rights to assets rest without qualification with the utility.

Encouraging Complaint Procedures in Professional Regulation

By Alice Woolley

On May 15, 2009

In Administrative Law

Case Considered: Acupuncture Committee v. Wanglin, 2009 ABCA 166

PDF version: Encouraging Complaint Procedures in Professional Regulation

Oversight of health professionals in Alberta occurs through a modified form of self-regulation under the authority of the Health Disciplines Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-2. Section 9(1) of the Act provides for the establishment of committees to govern each health discipline, and subsections (3) and (4) provide that a majority of the members of each committee shall either be engaged or registered in that discipline (whichever applies). Regulatory oversight of those committees is then provided by the Health Disciplines Board.

Proposed Amendments to Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act Off the Mark

By Linda McKay-Panos

On May 6, 2009

In Human Rights

Legislation Considered: Bill 44, Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act

PDF version: Proposed Amendments to Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act Off the Mark

Over the past twenty years, Alberta’s human rights legislation has been examined and changes have been recommended on more than one occasion. In the early 1990s, Alberta initiated a review of the Individual’s Rights Protection Act (as it was then named) and accepted submissions from people across Alberta. The final report of the review, Equal in Dignity and Rights: A Review of Human Rights in Alberta by the Alberta Human Rights Review Panel (O’Neill Report) contained 75 recommendations for reform. Some of the recommendations were implemented in amendments to the legislation. For example, “family status” was added as a protected ground in 1996 and the protection from retaliation for making a complaint was broadened in 1996. But, many of the recommendations were never implemented.

Dressing Down CPLED (Canadian Centre for Professional Legal Education)

By Alice Woolley

On May 4, 2009

In Ethics and the Legal Profession, Legal Education

PDF version: Dressing Down CPLED (Canadian Centre for Professional Legal Education)

As the warmth of spring has replaced the cold of winter, so too have our occasionally idiosyncratically attired law students been replaced by suit wearing post-graduates attending the Canadian Centre for Professional Legal Education (CPLED) course. Attendance at CPLED, and successful completion of its various assignments, is a pre-requisite for any person wishing to become a member of the Law Society of Alberta.

So too, it turns out, is donning a suit. The 2008-2009 Handbook for students attending CPLED in Alberta states:

Please wear business attire to class. You may not be allowed into class, and a note may be placed on your Law society [sic] file, if you are not dressed appropriately.

Students attending CPLED are, apparently, further advised that “business attire” means attire appropriate for students working at a large law firm, i.e., suits.

Month: May 2009

A rare species of tort in the Spray Valley: Abuse of public office

A Rock and a Hard Place

Encouraging Complaint Procedures in Professional Regulation

Proposed Amendments to Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act Off the Mark

Dressing Down CPLED (Canadian Centre for Professional Legal Education)