Author: Jonnette Watson Hamilton Page 10 of 42

B.A. (Alta.), LL.B. (Dal.), LL.M. (Col.).
Professor Emerita.
Please click here for more information.

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Foreclosing Mortgagees’ Liability for Tenants’ Security Deposits

Case Commented On: CIBC Mortgages Inc v Bello, 2018 ABQB 176 (CanLII)

This appeal from an order of a Tenancy Dispute Officer of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) is worth noting for several reasons. First, it appears that the question of whether a mortgagee becomes a “landlord” under the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2003, c R-17.1 (RTA) upon foreclosing on leased residential premises had not been addressed before. This is an important question for tenants looking to recover their security deposits and for foreclosing mortgagees who have not received those security deposits from their mortgagor. Second, the standard of review to be applied on an appeal from a Tenancy Dispute Officer’s order has been controversial within the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. Some decisions have held that correctness is the standard, whereas others, including this one, hold that the standard is one of reasonableness. Third, the court’s clear statement and elaboration of the purpose of the RTA–to address the power imbalance between landlords and tenants–should be helpful to tenants in future cases. Fourth, the decision is a good example of statutory interpretation and eminently suitable for a first year law school course on legislation. Finally, insofar as Tenancy Dispute Officers are not required to give reasons as part of their written orders, the occasional appeals of those orders (which must be accompanied by a transcript of the Tenancy Dispute Officer’s oral reasons) offer rare glimpses into the legitimacy of the dispute resolution services provided by the RTDRS.

No Discrimination Against Long-Term Care Residents in Elder Advocates of Alberta Case

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On February 23, 2018

In Constitutional, Health Law

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: No Discrimination Against Long-Term Care Residents in Elder Advocates of Alberta Case

Case Commented On: Elder Advocates of Alberta Society v Alberta, 2018 ABQB 37 (CanLII)

Our colleague Lorian Hardcastle recently posted a comment on the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society case, where a class of long-term care residents brought a claim against the Alberta government challenging its ability to charge accommodation fees in their facilities. As she noted, the plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their claims of unjust enrichment, negligence, and contract. The plaintiffs also argued that the accommodation charges were discriminatory on the basis of age and mental / physical disability, contrary to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice June Ross also dismissed this argument, and her reasons on the section 15 claim will be the focus of this post.

“Not One Cookie Cutter Citizen”: A Review of ABlawg Posts on Some of Justice Sheilah Martin’s Decisions

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On December 11, 2017

In Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jennifer Koshan, Jonnette Watson Hamilton, Fenner Stewart, and Lisa Silver

PDF Version: “Not One Cookie Cutter Citizen”: A Review of ABlawg Posts on Some of Justice Sheilah Martin’s Decisions

Matter Commented On: Justice Sheilah Martin’s Nomination to the Supreme Court of Canada

The Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary is thrilled that one of our own – Justice Sheilah Martin – has been nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada. Many of us watched her question and answer session with Parliamentarians on 5 December 2017, and were pleased to see her fierce intelligence, compassion and humour shine through. In one of the most quoted lines from her remarks, she said that she hoped her legacy would be that she was a deep thinker, a good listener, and had really great hair. The title of this post, “Not One Cookie Cutter Citizen”, is also taken from Justice Martin’s remarks during the hearing, when she was making a point about the importance of thinking about the differential impact of the law on people with different identities and needs. A review of ABlawg posts on decisions written by Justice Martin during her tenure as a judge in Alberta reveals her concern for the impact of the law on individuals and the public. This post will highlight four of Justice Martin’s decisions that we have blogged on over the years, in areas ranging from constitutional and health law, to civil litigation and vexatious litigants, to bankruptcy law and oil and gas assets, to homicide and sexual assault law. We also provide a list of other posts on her judgments for those who are interested in further reading on Justice Martin’s legacy as a judge in Alberta.

Landlords, Tenants and Domestic Violence: Introduction to a New ABlawg Ebook

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On December 6, 2017

In Landlord/Tenant, State Responses to Violence

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Editors’ Note: ABlawg is pleased to publish this new ebook, Landlords, Tenants and Domestic Violence: An ebook collection of ABlawg posts concerning residential tenancies and victims of domestic violence, on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women in Canada.

This ebook is a compilation of ABlawg posts from the last two years concerning residential tenancies and domestic violence.

Clarified: The Rebuttable Presumption of a Purchase Money Resulting Trust

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On November 9, 2017

In Property

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Clarified: The Rebuttable Presumption of a Purchase Money Resulting Trust

Case Commented On: Singh v Kaler, 2017 ABCA 275 (CanLII)

Singh v Kaler is a useful case for two purposes. First, it clearly describes the work that a presumption does–making useful evidentiary points. Second, it clarifies the test for finding a resulting trust based on the payment of money. Clarification of the law was evidently necessary. According to the majority–Justices Patricia Rowbotham and Sheila Greckol (at para 22)–the trial judge erred in law by applying the test for resulting trust that was set out in cases predating the 2013 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Nishi v Rascal Trucking Ltd, 2013 SCC 33 (CanLII). While there is a dissenting opinion, the dissent is confined to a limitations point; the Court of Appeal is unanimous on the presumption and resulting trusts points.