Author Archives: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

About Jonnette Watson Hamilton

B.A. (Alta.), LL.B. (Dal.), LL.M. (Col.). Professor Emerita. Please click here for more information.

No Discrimination Against Long-Term Care Residents in Elder Advocates of Alberta Case

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: No Discrimination Against Long-Term Care Residents in Elder Advocates of Alberta Case

Case Commented On: Elder Advocates of Alberta Society v Alberta, 2018 ABQB 37 (CanLII)

Our colleague Lorian Hardcastle recently posted a comment on the Elder Advocates of Alberta Society case, where a class of long-term care residents brought a claim against the Alberta government challenging its ability to charge accommodation fees in their facilities. As she noted, the plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their claims of unjust enrichment, negligence, and contract. The plaintiffs also argued that the accommodation charges were discriminatory on the basis of age and mental / physical disability, contrary to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice June Ross also dismissed this argument, and her reasons on the section 15 claim will be the focus of this post. Continue reading →

“Not One Cookie Cutter Citizen”: A Review of ABlawg Posts on Some of Justice Sheilah Martin’s Decisions

By: Jennifer Koshan, Jonnette Watson Hamilton, Fenner Stewart, and Lisa Silver

PDF Version: “Not One Cookie Cutter Citizen”: A Review of ABlawg Posts on Some of Justice Sheilah Martin’s Decisions

Matter Commented On: Justice Sheilah Martin’s Nomination to the Supreme Court of Canada

The Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary is thrilled that one of our own – Justice Sheilah Martin – has been nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada. Many of us watched her question and answer session with Parliamentarians on 5 December 2017, and were pleased to see her fierce intelligence, compassion and humour shine through. In one of the most quoted lines from her remarks, she said that she hoped her legacy would be that she was a deep thinker, a good listener, and had really great hair. The title of this post, “Not One Cookie Cutter Citizen”, is also taken from Justice Martin’s remarks during the hearing, when she was making a point about the importance of thinking about the differential impact of the law on people with different identities and needs. A review of ABlawg posts on decisions written by Justice Martin during her tenure as a judge in Alberta reveals her concern for the impact of the law on individuals and the public. This post will highlight four of Justice Martin’s decisions that we have blogged on over the years, in areas ranging from constitutional and health law, to civil litigation and vexatious litigants, to bankruptcy law and oil and gas assets, to homicide and sexual assault law. We also provide a list of other posts on her judgments for those who are interested in further reading on Justice Martin’s legacy as a judge in Alberta.  Continue reading →

Landlords, Tenants and Domestic Violence: Introduction to a New ABlawg Ebook

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Editors’ Note: ABlawg is pleased to publish this new ebook, Landlords, Tenants and Domestic Violence: An ebook collection of ABlawg posts concerning residential tenancies and victims of domestic violence, on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women in Canada.

This ebook is a compilation of ABlawg posts from the last two years concerning residential tenancies and domestic violence. Continue reading →

Clarified: The Rebuttable Presumption of a Purchase Money Resulting Trust

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Clarified: The Rebuttable Presumption of a Purchase Money Resulting Trust

Case Commented On: Singh v Kaler, 2017 ABCA 275 (CanLII)

Singh v Kaler is a useful case for two purposes. First, it clearly describes the work that a presumption does–making useful evidentiary points. Second, it clarifies the test for finding a resulting trust based on the payment of money. Clarification of the law was evidently necessary. According to the majority–Justices Patricia Rowbotham and Sheila Greckol (at para 22)–the trial judge erred in law by applying the test for resulting trust that was set out in cases predating the 2013 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Nishi v Rascal Trucking Ltd, 2013 SCC 33 (CanLII). While there is a dissenting opinion, the dissent is confined to a limitations point; the Court of Appeal is unanimous on the presumption and resulting trusts points. Continue reading →

Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Liability for Damage to Residential Premises

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Liability for Damage to Residential Premises

Report Commented On: Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta, Domestic Violence: Roles of Landlords and Property Managers

This is the sixth and last in a series of blog posts on “Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence”, examining some of the legal uncertainties facing landlords and property managers who seek to respond to domestic violence on their premises, as identified in the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta (CPLEA) report on Domestic Violence: Roles of Landlords and Property Managers. That report recommends that “further consideration should be given to ways that the law impedes or assists landlords in accommodating the needs of their tenants who are experiencing domestic violence” (at 9). Even landlords who are motivated to help improve the circumstances of victims of domestic violence are worried about recovering the costs of repairing damage to their property by the perpetrators of domestic violence when the security deposit is not enough (CPLEA report at 8, 45). But, in an example of the further victimization of too many of the victims of domestic violence, the CPLEA June 2014 report entitled “The Hidden Homeless: Residential Tenancies Issues of Victims of Domestic Violence” noted that “it is often the victim that the landlord pursues for overdue rent and damages” (at 5, 34, 38) – damages caused by the perpetrator of the violence. This post will discuss the interaction between the provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA) governing security deposits and compensation for property damage and the Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27 (PAFVA), the Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5 and the Matrimonial Property Act, RSA 2000, c M-8. The more general implications of those and other sources of protection orders in this context are discussed by Professor Jennifer Koshan in “Clarifying the Implications of Different Protection Orders”. Some of the points in this post rely upon or repeat issues raised in my “Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Who is a Tenant?” and “Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Changing Locks and Barring Access” posts. Continue reading →