Author: Jonnette Watson Hamilton Page 42 of 43

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

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.

Alberta’s New Vexatious Litigant Law Applied

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On January 12, 2008

In Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigants

Cases Considered: O’Neill v. Deacons, 2007 ABQB 754

PDF Version: Alberta’s New Vexatious Litigant Law Applied

The Alberta government passed new legislation in June of 2007 to give courts in the province more power to deal more effectively with “vexatious litigants.” These individuals were described by the Honourable Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Ron Stevens, in the Legislative Assembly on second reading of the amendments, in the following terms:

Ascertaining a Dominant Tenement With a Right to a View

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On December 12, 2007

In Property

Cases Considered: Kolias v. Owners Condominium Plan 309 CDC, 2007 ABQB 714

PDF Version: Ascertaining a Dominant Tenement With a Right to a View

The small community known as Eagle Ridge occupies the eastern shore of the Glenmore Reservoir in Calgary. In 1971, a restrictive covenant was registered against Lot 10 in the Eagle Ridge community, a lot now owned by the appellants, Ike and Lisa Kolias. In the restrictive covenant, Lot 10 was divided into three areas and height restrictions were imposed on two of those three areas. No structure or hedge over six feet in height could be built or placed in the first of those areas. Nothing over fourteen feet in height (except chimneys or radio or T.V. antenna) was allowed in the second area. Although not specified in the restrictive covenant itself, its purpose arguably was to protect the sight lines of the units in the six storey condominium on the adjacent lot. These units had views in three directions, including views of downtown to the north and, to the west across Lot 10, views of Heritage Park, the Glenmore Reservoir and the mountains to the west.

Moot Case Continues to Wind its Way Through Alberta Courts

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On November 11, 2007

In Arbitration

Cases Considered: Karaha Bodas Company, L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 2007 ABQB 616

Keywords: arbitration, international commercial arbitration, enforcement of foreign awards, moot case, costs

PDF Version: Moot Case Continues to Wind Its Way Through Alberta Courts

This October 2007 decision by Mr. Justice Robert A. Graesser is one very small part of a long and complex tale that is all too well known in international commercial arbitration circles. The parties’ dispute has been litigated extensively in several countries over the past nine years. With Mr. Justice Graesser’s decision, it will continue to be litigated in this province even though the parties and their dispute have no connection to Alberta and a decision in Alberta would have no effect on the rights of the parties, would not create a useful precedent, and would not put an end to the adversarial relationship between the parties.

Private Justice Delayed

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On November 6, 2007

In Arbitration, Family, Property

Cases Considered: Flock v. Flock, 2007 ABCA 287, Flock v. Flock, 2007 ABQB 307

Keywords: arbitration, matrimonial property division, leave to appeal

PDF Version: Private Justice Delayed

In September 2007, Mr. Justice Peter Martin denied leave to appeal of a May 2007 decision by Madam Justice K.M. Horner setting aside an arbitrator’s award dividing matrimonial property. The couple embroiled in this dispute had married in 1982, separated in 1994 and divorced in 1999. The couple had a considerable amount of real property and thorny issues related to property owned prior to the marriage and the value of those properties that should be exempted from the matrimonial property regime. A 6-day arbitration hearing was held before one arbitrator, Alan Beattie, Q.,C., in Calgary in 2003 and he rendered an award 33 months later, in July 2006. Article IX of the arbitration agreement between the couple and Mr. Beattie required the arbitrator to communicate his award to the parties within 60 days of the end of the hearing. The past year of litigation has been devoted to the husband’s application to set aside the July 2006 award.

Author: Jonnette Watson Hamilton Page 42 of 43

Restraining Disinheritance

Alberta’s New Vexatious Litigant Law Applied

Ascertaining a Dominant Tenement With a Right to a View

Moot Case Continues to Wind its Way Through Alberta Courts

Private Justice Delayed