Author: Jonnette Watson Hamilton Page 2 of 37

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

Decision Commented On: University of Toronto (Governing Council) v Doe et al., 2024 ONSC 3755 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Let Them Eat Breakfast? Encampments on Campus Part 3

Stampede Week in Calgary just ended. Pancake breakfasts and other festivities went ahead despite a recent water emergency. At times like this, folks often point to Calgary’s can-do attitude. Indeed, some observers have suggested that this same can-do attitude prevailed, in a good way, when the University of Calgary (UCalgary) called in the Calgary Police Service (CPS) to enforce a trespass notice within less than 24 hours of an on-campus encampment being established on May 9, 2024 (see e.g., the comments of Councillor Terry Wong at the May Calgary Police Commission hearing at 46:13, 49:15). Who needs an expensive court-ordered injunction when the police are willing to heed the call of property owners? Well, the University of Toronto (U of T) decided that it did, seemingly because the Toronto police – unlike the CPS – refused to intervene without a court order in a 50+ day encampment on that campus (University of Toronto v Doe et al., 2024 ONSC 3755 (CanLII) at para 212). U of T got its interlocutory injunction on July 2 and then others, such as Memorial University (here), suggested that the U of T injunction decision supported their actions in removing protesters. We expect UCalgary will also rely on the U of T decision to justify its actions after the fact.

The Basics of Alberta’s Torrens Title System: Three Cases

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On July 4, 2023

In Property

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Nigel Bankes

Cases commented on: St Pierre v Schenk, 2020 ABCA 382 (CanLII); Calgary (City) v Teulon, 2021 ABQB 388 (CanLII); St Pierre v North Alberta Land Registry District (Registrar), 2023 ABCA 153 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Basics of Alberta’s Torrens Title System: Three Cases

These three decisions about the basic elements of Alberta’s Torrens title system cover a wide range of issues. The two Alberta Court of Appeal decisions – one a reserved judgment – arise from the same set of facts, which feature a case of forgery. The first decision looks at whether the registration of a caveat will cure the caveator’s defective title, and the second discusses the Registrar’s liability for the caveator’s loss of an interest in land. The Court of King’s Bench decision stems from facts that are less straight-forward. It considers three statutory exceptions to the principle of indefeasibility that underlies Alberta’s Torrens title system: prior certificate of title, misdescription, and one of the listed exceptions in section 61 of the Land Titles Act, RSA 2000, c L-4 (LTA) (an alleged public highway).

Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service has a Complaint Process

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On April 11, 2023

In Landlord/Tenant, Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Reports Commented On: RTDRS Annual Report, 1^st edition (March 2020 – April 2021) and RTDRS Annual Report, 2^nd edition (March 2021 – April 2022)

PDF Version: Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service has a Complaint Process

Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) has a complaint process. It is almost a secret, and landlords and tenants can easily be unaware of its existence. The Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA) does not mention an RTDRS complaint process. Neither does the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Alta Reg 98/2006 (Regulation). An RTDRS complaint process is not referred to in the RTDRS Rules of Practice and Procedure (April 2023). Nor is it commented upon in the Code of Conduct for Tenancy Dispute Officers, the persons who decide landlord-tenant disputes at the RTDRS. It is not mentioned in the RTA handbook for landlords and tenants: Residential Tenancies Act and regulations [2023], nor in the 2018 version of that handbook. I could not find any mention of the complaint process on the Government of Alberta’s RTDRS website. The only public mention of an RTDRS complaint process is in the two annual reports that have been made public – the RTDRS Annual Report, 1^st edition (March 2020-April 2021) and the RTDRS Annual Report, 2^nd edition (March 2021-April 2022).

Another Trap for Unwary Alberta Residential Tenants: Short, Rigid Appeal Periods

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On February 24, 2023

In Property, Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Commented On: Afolabi v Wexcel Realty Management Ltd, 2023 ABKB 68 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Another Trap for Unwary Alberta Residential Tenants: Short, Rigid Appeal Periods

I have written before about the difficulties tenants face when trying to exercise their right to appeal orders granted by the Tenancy Dispute Officers (TDOs) of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS); see here and here. Those posts only briefly mention the timeline for filing an appeal, which is 30 days from the filing of the RTDRS Order in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta according to section 23(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Alta Reg 98/2006 (Regulation). I have also written before about some other fundamental deficiencies in that Regulation (here and here), as has my colleague, Shaun Fluker (here). This decision by Justice Michael A. Marion provides an opportunity to discuss the trap for unwary tenants caused by the appeal timeline provisions in the Regulation and by related provisions in the RTDRS Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).

Who is Responsible for Damage to Rental Premises Caused by Mouse Infestations – and Why?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On September 19, 2022

In Property

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Considered: Hometime Property Services Ltd v Girumnesh, 2022 ABPC 172 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Who is Responsible for Damage to Rental Premises Caused by Mouse Infestations – and Why?

The plaintiff, a corporate landlord, sued the defendant, their former residential tenant, for almost $8,000 in damages plus costs, claiming the rental premises were infested with mice when the tenant vacated. The damages were for exterminating the mice and restoring the premises to their pre-infestation condition. The tenant, who was served personally with the landlord’s civil claim, did not file a dispute note and was noted in default. Because they were noted in default and the claim was heard in Provincial Court, the tenant was deemed to have admitted the facts that were alleged in the landlord’s civil claim. Nevertheless, the landlord lost; their claim was dismissed in its entirety. Why that happened is worth taking note of.