Author: Drew Yewchuk Page 18 of 20

B.A. (UAlberta) J.D. (UCalgary) LLM (U.B.C.) Drew was a full-time staff lawyer with the University of Calgary's Public Interest Law Clinic from 2018-2022. He is now an PhD student at the Peter A. Allard School of Law. His research focuses on administrative secrecy, access to information law, species at risk, resource law, and environmental liabilities.

Case Commented On: PT v Alberta, 2018 ABQB 496

PT v Alberta, is the decision of Justice Johnna Kubik on the interlocutory application by several parents and various private schools for an injunction against two provisions in Bill-24: An Act to Support Gay Straight Alliances (Bill 24). Their application to delay the legal effect of the challenged provisions until their constitutional challenge could be heard was denied.

Although PT v Alberta is a fairly brief decision determining an interlocutory application, it is interesting for several reasons: (1) counsel for the applicants was a non-profit entity, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, who describes their mission as defending “the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through litigation and education” (JCCF); (2) the applicants brought experts whose evidence was in direct conflict with the legislated legal protections for sexuality and gender identity in Alberta; and (3) one of the religious beliefs that the applicants sought protection for was “that all sexual orientations are not equal” (at para 46). I begin with a summary of a decision, and then discuss these three issues in turn.

Litigation Privilege, the Adversarial System, and the Search for Truth

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 13, 2018

In Evidence, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Litigation Privilege, the Adversarial System, and the Search for Truth

Case Commented On: Waissmann v Calgary (City), 2018 ABQB 131 (CanLII)

Waissmann v Calgary (City) is a decision about occurrence reports produced by a Calgary transit bus driver following an accident on July 30, 2007 in which Mr. Waissmann was injured. Mr. Waissmann is suing the city and was seeking to compel the city to produce the occurrence reports. The city asserted litigation privilege over the occurrence reports. Master Robertson agreed with the city and determined the occurrence reports were subject to privilege and need not be produced (at para 44).

A Questionable Equity: Rectification and Tax Avoidance

By Drew Yewchuk

On December 18, 2017

In Contracts, Tax

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: A Questionable Equity: Rectification and Tax Avoidance

Case Commented On: Harvest Operations Corp. v Attorney General of Canada, 2017 ABCA 393 (CanLII)

Harvest Operations Corp. v Attorney General of Canada (Harvest Operations Corp. CA) is a case about an elaborate but unsuccessful tax avoidance maneuver and an attempt to get contract rectification. The details of the attempted tax avoidance are unreasonably complicated, and so I will focus on the facts necessary for the rectification issue (if you want to learn how to correctly perform the “bump transaction” method of avoiding capital gains tax, this post will not help you).

R v Cody: The Supreme Court Stands Their Ground on Unreasonable Delay

By Drew Yewchuk

On June 29, 2017

In Constitutional, Criminal, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: R v Cody: The Supreme Court Stands Their Ground on Unreasonable Delay

Case Commented On: R v Cody, 2017 SCC 31 (CanLII)

Just a little under a year after the Supreme Court released R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (CanLII) and established a new framework for the Charter section 11(b) right to a criminal trial within a reasonable time, the Court has released a new decision on the issue. (For my earlier post on Jordan, see here, and for a post discussing interpretation of Jordan by some Alberta courts see here.) R v Cody, 2017 SCC 31 (CanLII) clarifies the Jordan framework, but more importantly it affirms the Supreme Court’s commitment to ending the “culture of complacency towards delay in the criminal justice system” (at para 1) despite the pressure Jordan has placed on Crown prosecutors.

An Update on The Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 2, 2017

In Constitutional, Criminal

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: An Update on The Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time

Cases Commented On: R v Lam, 2016 ABQB 489 (CanLII); R v Regan, 2016 ABQB 561 (CanLII); R v Lavoie, 2017 ABQB 66 (CanLII)

It has been about 8 months since the Supreme Court released R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (CanLII) and overhauled how courts deal with applications under section 11(b) of the Charter, the right “to be tried within a reasonable time”. I described the new framework in an earlier post. In short, Jordan established presumptive ceilings for unreasonable delay (minus defence delays and exceptional circumstances) between charges being laid and the end of trial. The ceilings are 18 months for charges going to trial in provincial court and 30 months for charges going to superior court, subject to a flexible transitional approach for cases that were already in the system when Jordan was decided. Since the release of Jordan there have been 11 reported decisions in Alberta posted to CanLII for applications for stays under the new framework. This post discusses three of those decisions that addressed interesting aspects of the new framework.

Author: Drew Yewchuk Page 18 of 20

A Religious Belief in Inequality: No Injunction Against Bill 24

Litigation Privilege, the Adversarial System, and the Search for Truth

A Questionable Equity: Rectification and Tax Avoidance

R v Cody: The Supreme Court Stands Their Ground on Unreasonable Delay

An Update on The Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time