Author Archives: Alice Woolley

About Alice Woolley

LL.M. (Yale), LL.B. (Toronto), B.A. (Toronto). Professor. Member of the Alberta Bar. Please click here for more information.

Reasonable or resolute? Musings on the obligation of lawyers to grant reasonable requests for extensions

Case considered: Moose Mountain Buffalo Ranch v. Greene Farms Drilling Ltd., 2009 ABQB 489

PDF version: Reasonable or resolute? Musings on the obligation of lawyers to grant reasonable requests for extensions

Moose Mountain Buffalo Ranch and Greene Farms Drilling Ltd. entered into a contractual agreement pursuant to which Greene Farms undertook to service a deep water well and drill for water on lands owned by Moose Mountain. The lands are in Saskatchewan, and Greene Farms operates in Saskatchewan, but Greene Farms is extra-provincially registered in Alberta.

Continue reading →

Legal ethics and academic freedom?

Considered: Task Force on the Canadian Common Law Degree Final Report

PDF version: Legal ethics and academic freedom?

Introduction

Last week the Federation of Law Societies issued the “Final Report” of its Task Force on the Canadian Common Law Degree. The Final Report is the third document issued by the Task Force, the first being an initial Consultation Paper in September 2008, the second being its Interim Report issued in March 2009.

Continue reading →

Unhappy differences arise in R. v. Cunningham

Case considered: R. v. Cunningham, 2008 YKCA 7

PDF version: Unhappy differences arise in R. v. Cunningham

On November 17, 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada will hear argument in R. v. Cunningham, an appeal of a judgment by the Yukon Territory Court of Appeal released June 25, 2008. If the Court upholds the YKCA decision in Cunningham it would change the law in many other Canadian provinces, including Alberta (R. v. D.D.C., (1996) 43 Alta. L.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), generally referred to as Ferguson), Saskatchewan (Mireau v. Canada et al., (1995) 128 Sask. R. 142 (C.A.)), Manitoba (R. v. M.B.D., 2003 MBCA 116) and Ontario (R. v. Chatwell, (1998) 38 O.R. (3d) 32 (C.A.)).

Continue reading →

A curious cocktail – the mixed application of the law of contracts and administrative law to universities

Cases Considered:  Rittenhouse-Carlson v. Portage College 2009 ABQB 342

PDF version:  A curious cocktail – the mixed application of the law of contracts and administrative law to universities

Jane Rittenhouse-Carlson brought an action against Portage College alleging breach of contract and tortious conduct by the College. The alleged misconduct centered on the College’s decision to withdraw Ms. Rittenhouse-Carlson from the Health Care Aide program after she failed a practicum. Ms. Rittenhouse-Carlson alleged that she had been treated unfairly in the handling of the practicum, the assessment of it and as a result of the College’s failure to arrange an appropriate second practicum opportunity.

Continue reading →

The fat lady is singing: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission)

Case considered: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2009 ABCA 246

PDF version: The fat lady is singing: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission)

The ongoing saga of the Alberta Utilities Commission’s treatment of the removal of utility assets from rate base continues.

In 2007 ATCO filed a general rate application with the then Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (“EUB”) for approval of rates for the 2008 and 2009 test years. It advised the EUB that it was excluding the “Salt Cavern” assets from its applied-for rate base. Its justification for doing so was that while those assets had historically been included, they were no longer being used for transmission service, and would not be used in the foreseeable future. The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) advised ATCO that ATCO could not exclude the assets from the application absent an application by ATCO (and AUC approval) under s. 26 of the Gas Utilities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. G-5. Section 26 requires a gas utility to obtain permission prior to the sale, lease, mortgage, disposal or encumbrance of property. ATCO argued that since it was not selling the property or otherwise disposing of it, but was simply moving it out of rate base, approval under s. 26 should not be required. The AUC took the position that a unilateral withdrawal from rate base was equivalent to a disposition. ATCO appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.

Continue reading →