University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Author: Geoff S. Costeloe

Geoff S. Costeloe, B.Sc. (University of British Columbia) graduated from the University of Calgary Faculty of Law in 2015. During his studies, Geoff was successful in U of C’s Court of Appeal Moot team and was involved both on campus as the VP Academic of the Society of Law Students and off campus as an instructor with the Canadian Association of Disabled Skiing (CADS). His interest primarily lies in corporate issues but is also interested in the intersection of biological sciences and the law. He is currently completing his articles with Prowse Chowne LLP in Edmonton.

Reaffirming the Importance of Clarity in Drafting a Will

By

On August 24, 2015

In Wills and Estates

By: Geoff S. Costeloe

PDF Version: Reaffirming the Importance of Clarity in Drafting a Will

Case Commented On: MRM Estate (Re), 2015 ABQB 475

A recent Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision has demonstrated the lengths that the Court can go to determine the true intentions of a testator of a Will. The central issue in this case is determining whether or not the provided Last Will and Testament of the Testatrix was genuine despite several deficiencies. This case highlights one of the important changes from the previous Wills Act, RSA 2000, c W-12 which was in force until February 2012 when it was replaced by the Wills and Succession Act, SA 2010, c W-12.2 (the “Act”).

Read More

“The Feather and the Fiddle”: The Meaning of ‘Indian’ in s 91(24)

By

On May 6, 2014

In Aboriginal, Constitutional

By: Geoff S. Costeloe

PDF Version: “The Feather and the Fiddle”: The Meaning of ‘Indian’ in s 91(24)

Cases commented on: Daniels v Canada, 2013 FC 6; Canada v Daniels, 2014 FCA 101.

A decision by the Federal Court of Appeal has largely upheld a trial judge’s finding on just who exactly is encompassed by the word ‘Indian’ in s 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The section gives the federal government the power to regulate

24.       Indians, and Lands reserved for Indians.

The argument brought by the plaintiffs is that the word ‘Indian’ is broad enough to include both Métis individuals and non-status Indians. The trial judge found that both of these groups were ‘Indians’ under s 91(24) while the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the inclusion of Métis, but it rejected the inclusion of non-status Indians. Both of these decisions will be discussed below. The trial decision was the subject of the Alberta Court of Appeal moot this year, in which I participated as co-counsel for the plaintiffs (with Dex Zucchi, who dealt with issues on fiduciary duty that will not be addressed here).

Read More

Orders for Genetic Testing: Is the Genie Out of the Bottle?

By

On March 18, 2014

In Health Law, Privacy

By: Geoff S. Costeloe

PDF Version: Orders for Genetic Testing: Is the Genie Out of the Bottle?

Case commented on: Adacsi v Amin, 2013 ABCA 315

A recent decision at the Alberta Court of Appeal raises a major issue in personal injury jurisprudence. Adacsi v Amin, 2013 ABCA 315, is a precedent setting ruling that allows for the forced collection of a blood test for the purpose of determining the existence of a possible predisposition to disease.

Read More

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén