Author Archives: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

About Jonnette Watson Hamilton

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

Two cases concerning the Statute of Frauds (1677, U.K.)

Cases Considered: Leoppky v. Meston, 2008 ABQB 45, Wasylyshyn v. Wasylyshyn, 2008 ABQB 39

PDF Version: Two cases concerning the Statute of Frauds (1677, U.K.)

A statute enacted over 350 years ago by a Parliament sitting in London, England was the basis of two decisions of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench handed down the week of January 21, 2008. The decision of Madam Justice D.C. Read in Leoppky v. Meston, 2008 ABQB 45, was released January 17. The decision of Mr. Justice E.A. Marshall in Wasylyshyn v. Wasylyshyn, 2008 ABQB 39, was released January 18.

Continue reading →

The Standard of Review on Appeals of Masters’ Decisions to the Court of Queen’s Bench

Cases Considered: Canada (Attorney General) v. Chak, 2008 ABQB 103

PDF Version: The Standard of Review on Appeals of Masters’ Decisions to the Court of Queen’s Bench

Canada (Attorney General) v. Chak appears to be the first written decision by our former colleague, Keith Yamauchi, who was appointed to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta on December 14, 2007. That fact alone might make it worthy of a comment here. However, within his decision concerning a rather mundane student loan collection matter, the Honourable Mr. Justice K.D. Yamauchi also raises one interesting point.

Continue reading →

Security for Costs on Appeals by Impecunious and Vexatious Litigants

Cases Considered: Opal v. White, 2008 ABCA 25

PDF Version: Security for Costs on Appeals by Impecunious and Vexatious Litigants

The very short judgment of Mr. Justice Frans Slatter in Opal v. White is an unlikely candidate for a comment. It is barely more than a page – a scant seven paragraphs – and it cites neither rules nor precedents in deciding three applications for security for costs. Nevertheless, the judgment’s treatment of the issue of security for costs on an appeal of an order declaring the appellant to be a vexatious litigant is noteworthy.

Continue reading →

Leave to Appeal Arbitration Awards and the Addition of the Public Interest

Cases Considered: Lion’s Gate Homes Ltd. v. Shand, 2008 ABQB 15

PDF Version: Leave to Appeal Arbitration Awards and the Addition of the Public Interest

This brief decision by Mr. Justice D.K. Miller provides an opportunity to look at how the courts in Alberta have interpreted subsection 44(2) of the Arbitration Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-43. This is the provision that usually governs the ability of the parties to appeal an arbitrator’s award. Although subsection 44(2) does not, on the face of it, require that there be any public interest in the parties’ dispute or the award resolving that dispute or an appeal from the award, judges of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta have fairly consistently read in that extra element.

Continue reading →

Restraining Disinheritance

Cases Considered: Re Boychuk (Estate), 2008 ABQB 38

PDF Version: Restraining Disinheritance

The idea that a deceased person’s estate should be available to those who were dependent upon the deceased during his or her lifetime is an idea recognized by many legal systems. Sometimes it finds expression in the forced distribution of shares of a deceased’s estate; in other cases, a maintenance principle is adopted. Alberta originally adopted the forced share approach. The Married Women’s Relief Act, enacted in 1910, authorized a court to grant a widow who had been left less in her husband’s will than she would have been entitled to as her intestate share “such allowance … as may be just and equitable in the circumstances.” The courts interpreted that provision to me an the widow was entitled to an amount equivalent to her intestate share: McBratney v. McBratney (1919), 50 D.L.R. 132. However, within a generation, Alberta shifted to the more flexible maintenance approach and extended protection to children. In Alberta’s current statute, the Dependants Relief Act, the deceased’s dependants are entitled to adequate maintenance from his or her estate. Continue reading →