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.

The Metaphysical Court: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick and the Standard of Review

Cases Considered: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9

PDF Version: The Metaphysical Court: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick and the Standard of Review

Introduction
The standard used by courts to review administrative decision-making is of central importance to energy and resource development law. Key decisions about regulation of utilities, supervision of energy markets, development of energy projects and facilities, and environmental obligations imposed on resource development, are authorized by legislation, and made and implemented by regulatory authorities. While for the most part, most of the time, the focus of everyone involved is simply on the making and implementing of those regulatory decisions, the courts retain the constitutional power to review and ultimately control this exercise of regulatory authority. Thus, the question of how the courts will exercise that power – the level of deference they will employ and how willing they will be to override regulatory decision-makers – is the fundamental backdrop against which these decisions are made.

Continue reading →

Counsel Shall Not Bear Witness: Clarifying the Obligation of Counsel to Withdraw When Required to be a Witness

Cases Considered: Toliver v. Koepke, 2008 ABQB 37

PDF Version: Counsel Shall Not Bear Witness: Clarifying the Obligation of Counsel to Withdraw When Required to be a Witness

During divorce litigation the Plaintiff and Defendant disputed the existence of a settlement respecting distribution of matrimonial property. The dispute was directed for trial by Justice Moreau of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, at which point counsel for the Defendant (who was newly appointed and therefore had not been involved in discussions related to the settlement) brought an application to remove counsel for the Plaintiff. The application was brought on the grounds that Plaintiff’s counsel was a potential witness at the trial of the settlement issue. Justice Eric Macklin of the Court of Queen’s Bench granted the application.

Continue reading →

“www.JustAnswer.com… or How the Alberta Courts Respected the Market Surveillance Administrator’s Just Exercise of Jurisdiction”

Cases Considered: Alberta (Market Surveillance Administrator) v. Enmax Energy Corporation 2008 ABQB 54

PDF Version: “www.JustAnswer.com… or How the Alberta Courts Respected the Market Surveillance Administrator’s Just Exercise of Jurisdiction”

Regulation of the functioning of the market for electricity poses difficulties.  The price for electricity in Alberta is determined through the mechanism of the Power Pool on an hourly basis.  Generators bid the electricity they will have available for dispatch into the Power Pool during a given hour, and the Power Pool selects electricity in merit order (from the lowest price bid to the highest price bid) as required to meet demand in that hour.  The price of electricity in each hour is the level of the highest bid of the last unit of electricity required to meet demand in that hour.  Every in merit generator in that hour is then paid at that price, regardless of the level of the bid initially made by that generator.

Continue reading →

Fading to Brown: Limits on Evergreen Discovery in Alberta

Case Considered: Dabrowski v. Robertson, 2007 ABQB 680

PDF Version: Fading to Brown: Limits on Evergreen Discovery in Alberta

This decision by Madam Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench clarifies that counsel and parties to litigation in Alberta do not currently have an obligation to provide “evergreen” oral discovery. Counsel may have an obligation to disclose “after-acquired information” if it is requested by opposing counsel, and may have an obligation to correct misleading evidence provided by a witness. However, neither of those obligations requires them or their clients to disclose that the witness’s evidence at trial will be different from that given at discovery because the witness’s memory of events has now improved. The case also clarifies that while the Law Society remains the “best authority on compliance by its members with its Code of Professional Conduct,” “a lawyer’s ethical responsibility exists at common law, independently of any Code of Conduct” (para. 22 and 26).

Continue reading →

Substance Over Form: The Court of Appeal’s Protection of Intervener Rights at the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

Cases Considered: Lavesta Area Group v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2007 ABCA 365

PDF Version: Substance Over Form: The Court of Appeal’s Protection of Intervener Rights at the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

In Lavesta Area Group v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board) 2007 ABCA 365, Madam Justice Carole Conrad granted two appeals of Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (“Board”) decisions. She did so on the basis of “reasonable apprehension of bias” and, in particular, on the basis of the Board’s own concession that such an apprehension had arisen.

Continue reading →