Case commented on: Montes v. Al-Shiraida, 2011 ABQB 54
Manuel and Teresa Montes were injured in a motor vehicle accident. They each filed a statement of claim alleging that the accident was caused either by Al-Shiraida or by an unknown person operating a motor vehicle owned by Al-Shiraida. The Montes and the Administrator of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Act obtained consent judgments against Al-Shiraida. Al-Shiraida made two applications to set aside each of the consent judgments.
Case commented on: Andriuk v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., 2011 ABQB 59
Andriuk filed a statement of claim against Merrill Lynch pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, S.A. 2003, c. C-16.5. Merrill Lynch had indicated that it would not provide a statement of defence until after the certification hearing and Andriuk did not object. Andriuk then served Merrill Lynch with a Notice to Admit Facts under the former Rule 230. Merrill Lynch claimed the Notice to Admit Facts (called a “Notice to Admit” under New Rule 6.37) was premature and otherwise improper and brought an application to strike it. Madam Justice Sheilah Martin dismissed Merrill Lynch’s application.
Case considered: Information and Privacy Commissioner v. Alberta Teachers’ Association, an appeal from 2010 ABCA 26
Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal in Information and Privacy Commissioner v. Alberta Teachers’ Association, an appeal from 2010 ABCA 26. For a comment on the Court of Appeal decision, see Court of Appeal Decision on Privacy Process Likely to Have Significant Impact on Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner. Here is a summary of the case from the SCC’s website: “Ten individuals complained to the Office of the appellant Information and Privacy Commissioner that the respondent Alberta Teachers’ Association disclosed, in contravention of the Personal Information Protection Act, S.A. 2003, c. P 6.5, their personal information by publishing their names and other information about them in a publication called the “ATA News”. The adjudicator found that the Association had disclosed the complainants’ personal information contrary to ss. 7 and 19 of the Act. On judicial review, the adjudicator’s decision was quashed on the basis that the Commissioner lost jurisdiction for failing to comply with the time lines set out in s. 50(5) of the Act. The Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, upheld that decision.” The issues raised in the case include: Whether it is appropriate for a court, on judicial review, to review a matter that has not been decided by the tribunal at first instance? What consequences ought to flow when a tribunal breaches a statutorily imposed time line?
Case commented on: Maykowski v. Maykowski, 2011 ABQB 31
This case is described by Justice D.C. Read as “high-conflict divorce proceedings” commenced by the husband in combination with a claim for matrimonial property division, and in which the wife counterclaimed for divorce and distribution of matrimonial property. The wife sought summary judgment based on an alleged settlement agreement between the parties concerning the divorce and matrimonial property. Justice Read held that summary judgment was not available, based on an interpretation of Rule 12.48 of the new Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010. According to Justice Read, “It is patently clear from R. 12.48 that summary judgment is not available in any action under the Divorce Act. Although summary judgment is available in proceedings under the Matrimonial Property Act, if the action was commenced as a combined proceeding with the Divorce Act, because of R. 12.48(b), a summary judgment application under the Matrimonial Property Act can be made only after that action has been severed from the Divorce Act proceedings.” (at para. 16). Because the alleged settlement agreement dealt with claims made under the Divorce Act related to child custody, child and spousal support in addition to matrimonial property claims, summary judgment was not available (at para. 19). Justice Read noted that this would also have been the outcome under the old Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 390/1968, Rule 159, but noted that the exclusion has been outlined in more detail in the New Rules (at para. 15). Justice Read ordered the parties to proceed immediately to alternative dispute resolution, and if unsuccessful there, to trial (at para. 31).
Case commented on: Envision Edmonton Opportunities Society v. Edmonton (City), 2011 ABQB 29
This case involved an application by the City of Edmonton to sever a question from a judicial review of the City’s decision to reject a petition by Envision, which demanded that the Edmonton City Centre Airport remain open and that the City actively promote the use of the airport. The petition was rejected by the City Clerk on the basis that it was filed outside of the time limits established in the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, and that the required number of electors did not sign the petition. Envision sought mandamus to require the City to introduce a bylaw on the matter and to fix an election date to vote on the bylaw. The City sought to have the question regarding the time limit severed and heard first on the grounds that the second question (compliance with the Municipal Government Act) would require significant expense that could be avoided based on the outcome of the first question. Continue reading
