Monthly Archives: March 2012

Do Global Law Firm Mergers Expand an Arbitrator’s Continuing Obligation to Disclose Conflicts of Interest Under the ICSID Arbitration Rules?

PDF version: Do Global Law Firm Mergers Expand an Arbitrator’s Continuing Obligation to Disclose Conflicts of Interest Under the ICSID Arbitration Rules? 

Decision considered: ConocoPhillips Company et al. v The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Two members of an ICSID arbitral tribunal – the Honourable Judge Kenneth J. Keith and Professor Georges Abi-Saab – have dismissed Venezuela’s challenge to the tribunal’s third member, Mr. L. Yves Fortier.

Venezuela filed a formal proposal to disqualify Mr. Fortier on October 5, 2011, one day after Mr. Fortier made a disclosure to the ICSID Secretary-General regarding the upcoming merger of Norton Rose OR LLP (“Norton Rose”), the firm in which he was a partner, and Macleod Dixon LLP (“Macleod Dixon”). Macleod Dixon was a Canadian-based law firm with international offices in, among other regions, South America. Venezuela’s proposal to disqualify Mr. Fortier arose out of concerns related to Macleod Dixon’s Caracas office. Specifically, Venezuela had concerns about “the extent and depth” of that office’s representation of ConocoPhillips (the Claimant in this arbitration) and other clients in matters adverse to Venezuela, its state-owned petroleum company and/or affiliates.

Continue reading →

Decapitating the Fisheries Act by removing the HADD: A Critique of the Rationale

PDF version: Decapitating the Fisheries Act  by removing the HADD: A Critique of the Rationale

Decision considered: Federal government proposal to remove habitat protection from the Fisheries Act.

The federal government of Canada proposes to remove the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act RSC 2000, c F-14, s 35. Countless Canadians have vigorously spoken out against this proposal because removing these provisions would be a critical and fundamental change not only to federal legislative approach, but also to the management, protection, and well-being of fisheries in Canada. Continue reading →

Alberta Court of Appeal Declines to Appoint Counsel in Extradition of Jorge Sosa

Decision considered: United States of America v Sosa, 2012 ABCA 56

Emma McAuliffe wrote a blog expressing reasons why Jorge Sosa should face war crimes charges in Canada before being extradited to the United States (see: Why Canada should Address Jorge Vinicio Orantes Sosa’s Alleged War Crimes before Extraditing Him to the U.S. ) Nevertheless, Chief Justice Wittmann granted an extradition order on September 2, 2011. Sosa filed a Notice of Appeal on October 19, 2011, and a second Notice of Appeal on January 24, 2012. Since the appeal period allowed for under the Extradition Act, SC 1999, C 18 (s 50) would have expired on October 2, 2011, Sosa asked for an extension of time to proceed with the appeal. Alberta caselaw indicates that Sosa must demonstrate that he has a reasonable chance of success on the appeal before the extension will be granted (see: R v Truong, 2007 ABCA 127).

Continue reading →

The Proper Person to Renew an Assigned Lease

PDF version: The Proper Person to Renew an Assigned Lease

Case considered: C & H Properties Inc. v Amos (Discount Thrift Store), 2012 ABQB 106

Carelessness with respect to assignments and subleases can easily jeopardize commercial tenants’ rights to renew their leases. Many tenants assign or sublet their rented commercial premises without seeking their landlord’s consent, which is usually required by the terms of their lease. Many commercial tenants do not seem to know the difference between assignments and subleases. Neither do they appear to realize that when they assign their lease, they lose the right to renew the lease and only their assignee has that right, whereas if they sublet then they retain the right to renew the lease. Perhaps that is why commercial lease negotiation consulting appears to be a growing business in North America. However, despite some assistance from a consultant in this case, the tenant was never able to overcome a lack of attention to details in the lease or their confusion about the difference between an assignment and a sublease.

Continue reading →

The European Fuel Quality Directive: Will It Slay or Will It Go?

By: Matthew Ducharme

PDF Version: The European Fuel Quality Directive: Will It Stay or Will it Go? 

Document Commented On: Draft Implementing Measure to the European Union Fuel Quality Directive, February 23, 2012

On February 23, 2012, a European Union (EU) drafting committee voted on a draft law that discriminates against bitumen. This was the Draft Implementing Measure to the European Union Fuel Quality Directive (Implementing Measure). The Canadian press reported the vote ended in a stalemate. The press also noted that the law would be reconsidered in the late spring or early summer (National Post; CBC; Globe and Mail).

If the EU enacts the law it will have made a step in its fight against climate change, but the market for bitumen may be negatively impacted. If the law dies, Canada can expect a higher price on the sale of its bitumen in overseas markets. This note examines the February 23 vote within the EU law making process.

Continue reading →