Author Archives: Admin

Third Edition of the JSS Barristers Rules

As noted in previous posts, in its newsletter titled JSS Barristers Rules JSS Barristers provides summaries of cases considering the new Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010.

Issue 3 of the Newsletter and updated Cumulative Summary are now available here.

The JSS Barristers website, www.jssbarristers.ca, features a Cumulative Summary of Court Decisions which considers the Alberta Rules of Court. The Cumulative Summary of the Rules is organized by the Rule considered, and includes an expanded summary of the Decisions including key quotations from the Decisions. It is updated regularly to ensure that it provides an ongoing and current resource for those interested in the consideration of the Rules of Court on a cumulative basis.

Those who are interested in receiving future editions of JSS Barristers Rules can subscribe here.

Second edition of JSS Barristers Rules now available

As noted in a previous post, JSS Barristers is providing summaries of cases considering the new Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010, in a newsletter called JSS Barristers Rules. The second edition of the newsletter is available here. Of particular note is the following:

Our website, www.jssbarristers.ca, now also features a Cumulative Summary of Court Decisions which consider the Alberta Rules of Court. The Cumulative Summary of the Rules is organized by the Rule considered, and includes an expanded summary of the Decisions including key quotations from the Decisions. It will be updated regularly to ensure that it provides an ongoing and current resource for those interested in the consideration of the Rules of Court on a cumulative basis.

Those who are interested in receiving future editions of JSS Barristers Rules can subscribe here.

JSS Barristers and The New Rules of Court

ABlawg readers may have noticed that we have not posted any comments lately on the new Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010. We have decided to leave that task to our colleagues at JSS Barristers, who released the first issue of its JSS Rules newsletter in April, 2011. You can subscribe to JSS Rules here. Sabri Shawa, who has taught Civil Procedure as a sessional instructor in the Faculty of Law since 2003, advises that JSS Rules will be released quarterly (first in paper and eventually, on-line only) and JSS Barristers will provide updates on new rules cases to subscribers between newsletters. ABlawg may still provide commentary on some new rules cases that intersect with other areas we are blogging, but in the meantime we are pleased to wish our colleagues at JSS Barristers success with their comprehensive new rules initiative.

Citing Blawgs

Omar Ha-Redeye recently wrote an interesting post for Slaw on Citing Blogs in Law Journals, which generated quite a bit of discussion about the role of blogs as legal authority. Here at ABlawg we’re aware of a couple of our posts that have been cited in factums and other legal arguments. Nigel Bankes’ post When is a non-operator entitled to a constructive trust over the operator’s own assets? was referred to in a factum filed by the appellant in its appeal of Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v. Vanquish Oil and Gas Corporation, 2008 ABQB 444, and Jennifer Koshan’s post Rule of Law, Deference and Contempt: Another Chapter in the Black Bear Crossing Dispute was cited by counsel for the appellant in its application for leave to appeal Tsuu T’ina Nation v. Frasier, 2009 ABCA 140 to the Supreme Court of Canada. We are interested in hearing from ABlawg readers if you are aware of other ABlawg posts that have been cited in legal arguments, academic articles and other legal materials. And we’d also love to hear your views on the citation of blawgs as legal authority.

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 5.41 and Medical Examinations

Case commented on: Nystrom v. Ranson, 2011 ABQB 116

The Plaintiff alleged physical injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident. He claimed that his physical injuries limited his present and future vocational options and claimed past and future lost income. No psychological harm was expressly alleged in the statement of claim. The Plaintiff proposed to introduce expert evidence from an occupational therapist and a vocational counsellor at trial, in addition to the evidence of a physician and an orthopaedic surgeon. The Plaintiff agreed to an examination by two of the Defendants’ experts, an occupational therapist and a vocational therapist, but brought an application to limit the length and scope of those examinations.

Continue reading