Author Archives: Drew Yewchuk

About Drew Yewchuk

B.A. (University of Alberta) J.D. (University of Calgary). Drew was formerly a staff lawyer with the University of Calgary's Public Interest Law Clinic from 2018-2022 and is now an LLM student at the Peter A. Allard School of Law.

Material and Cultural Causes of Delay

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Material and Cultural Causes of Delay

Case Commented On: R v King, 2019 ABQB 467

This is the seventh instalment in my long-running series of blog posts covering Alberta decisions dealing with the fallout of R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, released almost three years ago. This post starts with a discussion of the recent R v King, 2019 ABQB 467, which covers one of the two live issues about Jordan that will be going up before the SCC: whether or not the time between when an application or case is heard and when it is decided (often called ‘judicial delay’; I will refer to it as ‘judicial decision-making time’) is excluded from the delay calculation. This issue will be before the Supreme Court as part of R v KGK, 2019 MBCA 9, on September 25, 2019. (The second issue is how the timelines apply to minors, an issue in the appeal of R v KJM, 2018 ABCA 278, which the SCC heard in February 2019). The second part of the blog post discusses some longer-term impacts of Jordan, and some of the limitations of the decision. Continue reading →

A Stressful Legal System Creates Vexatious Self-Reps

By: Drew Yewchuk & Christine Laing

PDF Version: A Stressful Legal System Creates Vexatious Self-Reps

Case Commented On: Davis v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2019 ABQB 6 (CanLII)

Davis v Alberta (Human Rights Commission) is a judicial review of a decision by the Acting Chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to dismiss three complaints filed by Ms. Davis with the AHRC. There are no significant developments in human rights law in this decision, but it offers a good opportunity to consider the impact of administrative delays in dispute resolution mechanisms on individuals, especially self-represented ones. Davis also offers an example where the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench was invited to find a self-represented litigant vexatious for the purposes of a costs decision.

  Continue reading →

Let’s Talk About Access to Information in Alberta Part Two: Alberta’s Policy on Wildlife Rehabilitation

By: Shaun Fluker and Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Let’s Talk About Access to Information in Alberta Part Two: Alberta’s Policy on Wildlife Rehabilitation

Policy Change Commented On: Alberta Orphan Black Bear Cub Rehabilitation Protocol, April 2018

In April 2018, Alberta Environment and Parks revised its wildlife rehabilitation policy to allow for the rehabilitation of black bears less than one year old. This change allows for the rehabilitation of orphaned black bear cubs in Alberta, an activity that has been prohibited since 2010 when Alberta implemented a policy change that heavily limited wildlife rehabilitation. Under the new policy, orphaned or injured black bear cubs and several other species have typically been euthanized by wildlife officers. Injured or orphaned wildlife with the good fortune of being found in the national parks might be spared this fate because of federal policy which is more accommodating to the interests of wildlife. For example, orphan bear cubs found in a washroom in Banff were sent to be rehabilitated outside of the province. The Public Interest Law Clinic at the University of Calgary had been working with a person interested in challenging Alberta’s prohibitive wildlife rehabilitation policy, and after the policy change for orphaned black bear cubs in April of 2018, we filed a freedom of information request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP Act) seeking to learn more about this policy shift. In December 2018 we received the disclosure materials, and this post explains what we learned as part of our ongoing series about using the access to information process in Alberta.

Continue reading →

Trial Within A Reasonable Time: A Farewell to the Transitional Period

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Trial Within A Reasonable Time: A Farewell to the Transitional Period

Case Commented On: R v Scher, 2018 ABCA 365; R v Carter, 2018 ABQB 657; R v Tetreault, 2018 ABCA 397

The Supreme Court rendered judgment in R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 on July 8, 2016. This post is a review of three recent Alberta decisions addressing Jordan, and a farewell to the transitional provisions, as it has been almost thirty months since Jordan was released. The transitional provisions apply only to time between when charges were laid and when Jordan was released. Few cases left in the system (though some decisions are likely still pending) will involve relevant argument on the application of the transitional provisions. The post ends with a caution about where the law might be headed.

Continue reading →

Let’s Talk About Access to Information in Alberta: Part One

By: Shaun Fluker and Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Let’s Talk About Access to Information in Alberta: Part One

Legislation Commented On: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25

The Faculty’s Public Interest Law Clinic handles a lot of inquiries from the community that engage with Alberta’s access to information legislation: the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP Act). Simply put, there is a high demand for the disclosure of information collected, produced and otherwise held by state officials. The Information and Privacy Commissioner, who serves as an officer of the Legislature (FOIP Act, s 45), is responsible for overseeing the administration of the FOIP Act with the assistance of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). In its 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 reports to the Legislative Assembly the OIPC indicated the access to information process in Alberta is approaching a crisis. Since commencing operations in 2015, the Public Interest Law Clinic has developed some expertise on working within the FOIP Act, and we would agree the system needs some critical attention. This post summarizes our current observations in this regard and, as the title to this post suggests, we see this as the beginning of a longer conversation. In order to illustrate the process and some of the problems within it, we refer to a request for information filed by the Clinic in July 2017, which is still ongoing, with respect to a creative environmental sentence imposed on CN Rail (see here for details on the offence and the creative sentence).

Continue reading →