Author: Jonnette Watson Hamilton Page 27 of 42

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

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.

Refining Vexatious Litigant and Vexatious Spokesperson Jurisprudence

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On February 21, 2012

In Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court, Vexatious Litigants

Case considered: Allen v Gray, 2012 ABQB 66

PDF version: Refining Vexatious Litigant and Vexatious Spokesperson Jurisprudence

Alberta’s new vexatious litigant provisions have been in force for almost five years now and a useful body of precedent has been developed. Novel points continue to arise, but these tend to be minor ones. Nevertheless, Allen v Gray makes three useful legal points: (1) case law from before the 2007 amendments continues to be useful, in part because the term “vexatious” is undefined; (2) it is irrelevant whether the alleged vexatious litigant is prosecuting (or defending) his or her own action or acting as an agent for another person (the “vexatious spokesperson”); and (3) the new provisions are of no help in preventing vexatious administrative proceedings.

Waiver of Dispute Resolution under the New Rules

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On December 19, 2011

In Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court

PDF version: Waiver of Dispute Resolution under the New Rules

Case considered: IBM Canada Limited v Kossovan, 2011 ABQB 621.

In IBM Canada Limited v Kossovan, Mr. Justice Bryan E. Mahoney provided the first judicial interpretation of an important new provision in the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 (New Rules). The provision in question – Rule 4.16(2) — governs applications to waive the dispute resolution processes mandated by Rule 4.02(e) of the New Rules. As Justice Mahoney notes (at para 4), “[w]hile the New Rules contemplate circumstances wherein the requirement might be waived, as yet, there is little guidance from our Court as to how this Rule is to be interpreted.” Using case law from other jurisdictions that have adopted similar mandatory dispute resolution procedures, this decision begins to provide that guidance. However, as much of that guidance is based on anecdotal evidence and intuitions about the effectiveness of dispute resolution, it is to be hoped that the mandatory dispute resolution provisions of the New Rules will be empirically evaluated for both costs and benefits in the near future.

Is this the end of an “endless repetition of failed litigation” – at least in Alberta?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On November 15, 2011

In Arbitration, Vexatious Litigants

PDF version: Is this the end of an “endless repetition of failed litigation” – at least in Alberta?

Case considered: Karaha Bodas Company, L.L.C. v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 2011 ABCA 291

The Court of Appeal waxes eloquent in this short judgment that considers the latest episode in what the Court characterized (at para 8 ) as an “endless repetition of failed litigation.” The Court of Appeal – composed of Mr. Justice Jean Côté, Madam Justice Elizabeth McFadyen and Mr. Justice Clifton O’Brien – heard an appeal from an April 1, 2010 order by Mr. Justice T.D. Clackson (Karaha Bodas Company, L.L.C. v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 2010 ABQB 172), an order that I commented on in “Arbitration for the Quick and Final Resolution of Disputes? Hardly.” The subject matter of that order is a procedural morass, the details of which are rather mind-numbing. What is interesting about the latest decision is the Court of Appeal’s characterization of Pertamina’s continuing world-wide litigation as “vexatious”. Will that characterization finally bring a halt to these proceedings, at least in this province?

How persistent does a vexatious litigant have to be?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On July 27, 2011

In Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigants

PDF version: How persistent does a vexatious litigant have to be?

Case considered: Wong v Giannacopoulos, 2011 ABCA 206

Are the 2007 vexatious litigant provisions in the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, being overused? Is it too easy to have a person declared a “vexatious litigant and barred from bringing or continuing court actions without leave of a court? I am sure that every person who has had a vexatious litigant order made against them would answer “yes” to both questions, but what might a more detached assessment reveal? These questions demand empirical answers that I cannot give. However, the recent decision of Justice Frans Slatter in Wong v Giannacopoulos suggests that vexatious litigant orders are only being granted in rather extreme cases. It seems to take a lot of improper behaviour against a variety of long-suffering defendants before a person is denied unmediated access to a court.

Author: Jonnette Watson Hamilton Page 27 of 42

The Proper Person to Renew an Assigned Lease

Refining Vexatious Litigant and Vexatious Spokesperson Jurisprudence

Waiver of Dispute Resolution under the New Rules

Is this the end of an “endless repetition of failed litigation” – at least in Alberta?

How persistent does a vexatious litigant have to be?