Author: Drew Yewchuk Page 16 of 19

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: 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.

A Stressful Legal System Creates Vexatious Self-Reps

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 21, 2019

In Access to Justice, Human Rights, Vexatious Litigants

By: Drew Yewchuk & Christine Laing

PDF Version: A Stressful Legal System Creates Vexatious Self-Reps

Case Commented On: Davis v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2019 ABQB 6 (CanLII)

Davis v Alberta (Human Rights Commission) is a judicial review of a decision by the Acting Chief of the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to dismiss three complaints filed by Ms. Davis with the AHRC. There are no significant developments in human rights law in this decision, but it offers a good opportunity to consider the impact of administrative delays in dispute resolution mechanisms on individuals, especially self-represented ones. Davis also offers an example where the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench was invited to find a self-represented litigant vexatious for the purposes of a costs decision.

Trial Within A Reasonable Time: A Farewell to the Transitional Period

By Drew Yewchuk

On December 6, 2018

In Criminal, Human Rights

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Trial Within A Reasonable Time: A Farewell to the Transitional Period

Case Commented On: R v Scher, 2018 ABCA 365; R v Carter, 2018 ABQB 657; R v Tetreault, 2018 ABCA 397

The Supreme Court rendered judgment in R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 on July 8, 2016. This post is a review of three recent Alberta decisions addressing Jordan, and a farewell to the transitional provisions, as it has been almost thirty months since Jordan was released. The transitional provisions apply only to time between when charges were laid and when Jordan was released. Few cases left in the system (though some decisions are likely still pending) will involve relevant argument on the application of the transitional provisions. The post ends with a caution about where the law might be headed.

Author: Drew Yewchuk Page 16 of 19

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

A Stressful Legal System Creates Vexatious Self-Reps

Trial Within A Reasonable Time: A Farewell to the Transitional Period