Author: Drew Yewchuk Page 16 of 20

B.A. (UAlberta) J.D. (UCalgary) LLM (U.B.C.) Drew was a full-time staff lawyer with the University of Calgary's Public Interest Law Clinic from 2018-2022. He is now an PhD student at the Peter A. Allard School of Law. His research focuses on administrative secrecy, access to information law, species at risk, resource law, and environmental liabilities.

Decision Commented On: COVID-19 orders and legislation

A recurring theme of recent ABlawg posts is the difficulty in determining what legal authority is being used to make emergency-based changes to Alberta law due to COVID-19, and precisely what the changes are. This post is a variation on that theme, setting out the end dates set for a selection of COVID-19 related legal changes, and discussing how the end dates should be re-thought soon.

When Solicitor-Client Privilege Protects the Government from You

By Drew Yewchuk

On April 13, 2020

In Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: When Solicitor-Client Privilege Protects the Government from You

Decision Commented On: Edmonton Police Service v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2020 ABQB 207

Edmonton Police Service v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2020 ABQB 207 (EPS v IPC) is a decision on judicial review of Order F2018-36 (Re), made by an adjudicator at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). The decision addresses the “Privileged Information” exemption from disclosure found in section 27 of Alberta’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000 C-F-25 (FOIP). This post discusses the background to the decision and offers some commentary on the broader freedom of information implications of the decision.

Freedom of Information in Alberta: The Troubles With the OIPC

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 19, 2020

In Health Law

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Freedom of Information in Alberta: The Troubles With the OIPC

Decision Commented On: Re Alberta Health, F2019-16, 2019 CanLII 33710

This is the third in a series of posts on Alberta’s access to information legislation, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP Act). The first post set out the basic structure of the access to information, and the second post was a case study on the use of the FOIP Act. This post focuses on the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC), which serves as the initial dispute resolution mechanism for FOIP issues. The post also describes how the “adequate alternative remedy principle” can make troubled administrative review bodies into obstacles to effective oversight.

The 2018/2019 Year in Access to Justice Issues on ABlawg

By Drew Yewchuk

On September 30, 2019

In Access to Justice

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The 2018/2019 Year in Access to Justice Issues on ABlawg

The Canadian Bar Association’s Access to Justice Week in Alberta runs from September 28-October 5, 2019. This annual event is meant to highlight the ongoing inequality in access to legal services and legal dispute resolution mechanisms in Canada. Many Canadians are unable to protect their rights and interests in our legal system. This means those on the lower economic rungs are subject to the law but rarely protected by it – a black mark on the rule of law in Canada. The full list of events can be accessed at the website here.

This is a summary of ABlawg posts dealing with access to justice issues from September 2018 to September 2019. These posts covered important issues on access to justice issues, and I start by following up on the four indicator issues discussed in my post from last year.

Material and Cultural Causes of Delay

By Drew Yewchuk

On July 18, 2019

In Civil Procedure, Constitutional

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Material and Cultural Causes of Delay

Case Commented On: R v King, 2019 ABQB 467

This is the seventh instalment in my long-running series of blog posts covering Alberta decisions dealing with the fallout of R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, released almost three years ago. This post starts with a discussion of the recent R v King, 2019 ABQB 467, which covers one of the two live issues about Jordan that will be going up before the SCC: whether or not the time between when an application or case is heard and when it is decided (often called ‘judicial delay’; I will refer to it as ‘judicial decision-making time’) is excluded from the delay calculation. This issue will be before the Supreme Court as part of R v KGK, 2019 MBCA 9, on September 25, 2019. (The second issue is how the timelines apply to minors, an issue in the appeal of R v KJM, 2018 ABCA 278, which the SCC heard in February 2019). The second part of the blog post discusses some longer-term impacts of Jordan, and some of the limitations of the decision.

Author: Drew Yewchuk Page 16 of 20

When Are the COVID-19 Related Changes and Suspensions to Albertan Law Scheduled to End?

When Solicitor-Client Privilege Protects the Government from You

Freedom of Information in Alberta: The Troubles With the OIPC

The 2018/2019 Year in Access to Justice Issues on ABlawg

Material and Cultural Causes of Delay