University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Author: Jonnette Watson Hamilton Page 4 of 42

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

The Chilling Effect of Costs on Appeals from Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Orders

By

On March 3, 2022

In Costs, Landlord/Tenant

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: The Chilling Effect of Costs on Appeals from Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Orders

Case Commented On: Chisholm v Boardwalk General Partnership, 2021 ABQB 991 (CanLII)

This brief decision by Justice John T Henderson concerns the costs of appealing a decision of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. Following an April 2021 hearing, the RTDRS’ Tenancy Dispute Officer ordered the tenant, Ms. Chisholm, to pay her landlord, Boardwalk, the sum of $2,606.78 for arrears in rent, utilities, and parking, plus $75 in costs. The tenant appealed, but Justice Henderson dismissed her appeal in November 2021. Boardwalk then asked Justice Henderson to award them $4,556.25 in costs for that appeal. Not only did they want costs of $4,556.25 for winning an appeal from a judgment for $2,606.78, they had threatened to ask for costs of $7,087.50 (at para 5g). And they wanted these costs from a tenant whose source of income was Alberta’s Assured Income for the Severally Handicapped (AISH), i.e., a tenant who by definition has a permanent and untreatable medical condition that substantially limits their ability to earn a living (AISH Overview – Eligibility). For people living in privately-owned housing like this tenant, the maximum AISH monthly allowance has been $1,685 for the past two years (AISH Policy Manual). Her rent at Boardwalk was $1,079 per month (para 5b), leaving $606 per month for food, clothing, transportation, and all other needs.

Read More

Frost on the Constitutional Windshield: Challenge to Critical Infrastructure Defence Act Struck by Alberta Court of Appeal

By

On February 8, 2022

In Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, Protest

By: Jennifer Koshan, Lisa Silver and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Frost on the Constitutional Windshield: Challenge to Critical Infrastructure Defence Act Struck by Alberta Court of Appeal

Case Commented On: Alberta Union of Public Employees v Her Majesty the Queen (Alberta), 2021 ABCA 416 (CanLII) (AUPE (ABCA))

The Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, SA 2020, c C-32.7 (CIDA) has been in the news recently, with the truckers’ blockade at Coutts, Alberta causing some to question the lack of enforcement of available legal sanctions. CIDA prohibits entering on to, damaging, or obstructing essential infrastructure in the province, amongst other activities. Essential infrastructure is broadly defined and includes highways and – as of October 2021– health care facilities (Critical Infrastructure Defence Regulation, Alta Reg 169/2021; for a discussion of that addition see here). However, it appears that no charges have been laid under CIDA to date despite several disruptive COVID-19 related protests on and blockades of essential infrastructure.

Read More

Setting Aside and Varying Orders of the Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service for Procedural Unfairness

By

On November 2, 2021

In Landlord/Tenant, Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Setting Aside and Varying Orders of the Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service for Procedural Unfairness

Cases Commented On: 21006414 (Re), 2021 ABRTDRS 19 (CanLII), 20003149 (Re), 2020 ABRTDRS 18 (CanLII), 20003525 (Re), 2020 ABRTDRS 21 (CanLII), and Hammond v Hammond, 2019 ABQB 522 (CanLII)

This post looks at how difficult it is to have an order of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) set aside or varied. The power of a Tenancy Dispute Officer (TDO) to set aside or vary their own order was added in 2017 to the Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Alta Reg 98/2006 (RTDRS Regulation). Unfortunately, there has been little reported consideration of how the new section 19.1 works. There are three reported Reasons for the Decision from the RTDRS, all of which were written by TDO J. Young. The most recently added Reasons for Decision cited two Court of Queen’s Bench cases that provide some principles that can be used to interpret section 19.1. It is therefore an opportune time to look at how easy (or difficult) it is for a landlord or tenant to persuade a TDO to set aside or vary the TDO’s own order.

Read More

Critical Infrastructure Defence Act Charter Challenge Survives Alberta Government’s Motion to Strike

By

On August 5, 2021

In Constitutional, Human Rights

By: Jennifer Koshan, Lisa Silver and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Critical Infrastructure Defence Act Charter Challenge Survives Alberta Government’s Motion to Strike

Case Commented On: Alberta Union of Public Employees v Her Majesty the Queen (Alberta), 2021 ABQB 371 (CanLII)

Last summer we posted a critical analysis of Alberta’s Bill 1, the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, SA 2020, c C-32.7 (CIDA). We argued that CIDA, which prohibits unlawfully entering onto, damaging, or obstructing any “essential infrastructure” in the province, violates several sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including freedom of expression (s 2(b)), freedom of peaceful assembly (s 2(c)), freedom of association (s 2(d)), the right to liberty (s 7) and the right to equality (s 15). Shortly after CIDA took effect on June 7, 2020, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) and three individual plaintiffs brought a constitutional challenge against the law, arguing that it violates those Charter rights and freedoms (with the exception of s 15, which was not raised), as well as sections 1(a), (c), and (d) of the Alberta Bill of Rights, RSA 2000, c A-14 (which protect similar rights as well as the right to enjoyment of property). The plaintiffs also contended that CIDA encroaches on federal jurisdiction under The Constitution Act, 1867, namely, s 91(27) (federal jurisdiction over criminal law) and s 92(10)(a) (federal jurisdiction over interprovincial works and undertakings). In a decision released in June, Justice Shaina Leonard of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the government’s motion to strike the challenge.

Read More

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Confirms that a Registrar’s Caveat Is Not a Magic Wand

By

On January 27, 2021

In Property

By: Nigel Bankes and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Confirms that a Registrar’s Caveat Is Not a Magic Wand

Decision Commented On: Primrose Drilling Ventures v Registrar of Titles, 2021 SKCA 15

This case involves the rights acquired by a party (Primrose Drilling) who took a title that was encumbered by a registrar’s caveat. The caveat was filed to warn purchasers of a potential registrar’s error made back in the chain of title, but it was filed after a purchaser for value had got on the register relying on the flawed title.

The case came before the courts on the basis of a reference from the registrar relying on section 108 of The Land Titles Act, 2000, SS 2000, c L-5.1. The trial judge (Registrar of Titles and Great West Life Assurance Company and Primrose Drilling Ventures Ltd, 2018 SKQB 290 (CanLII)) concluded that Primrose’s title was subject to whatever interest the Registrar was seeking to protect (in this case the interests of GWL, the successor in interest to a party wrongly deprived of the mineral title to the lands in question). We commented on the trial judgment at some length in “Saskatchewan Land Titles Decision Calls Out for Appellate Review.” We took the position that the registrar had no authority to file a caveat once a purchaser for value had got on title on the faith of the register and that Primrose (the last purchaser for value in the chain of purchasers for value) was entitled to a title free of the blemish represented by the registrar’s claim. We refer the reader to that post for a detailed analysis and discussion of relevant authorities from both Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Read More

Page 4 of 42

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén