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.

What Does La Rose Tell Us About Climate Change Litigation in Canada?

By: Nigel Bankes, Jennifer Koshan, Jonnette Watson Hamilton, and Martin Olszynski

Case Commented On: La Rose v Canada, 2023 FCA 241 (CanLII)

PDF Version: What Does La Rose Tell Us About Climate Change Litigation in Canada?

The last decade has seen an explosion of domestic climate change litigation around the world and an equally rich body of academic literature examining the case law from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law maintains an excellent data base covering these developments. Important cases in other jurisdictions include the Urgenda decision (Urgenda v Netherlands (2019)) and Shell decision (Milieudefensie et al v Shell (2021)) in the Netherlands, and the 2021 decision of the German constitutional court (Neubauer et al v Germany). Australian environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) have been particularly active in bringing climate change issues before the courts, especially in the context of proposed natural gas and coal projects, most famously in the Sharma case (Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560, appeal allowed, [2022] FCAFC 35). Continue reading →

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

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). Continue reading →

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

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Reports Commented On: RTDRS Annual Report, 1st edition (March 2020 – April 2021) and RTDRS Annual Report, 2nd 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, 1st edition (March 2020-April 2021) and the RTDRS Annual Report, 2nd edition (March 2021-April 2022). Continue reading →

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

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).  Continue reading →

Grounding the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Proposal to Protect Vaccination Status

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Legislation Commented On: Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5

PDF Version: Grounding the Alberta Human Rights Act and the Proposal to Protect Vaccination Status

The Alberta Human Rights Act (AHRA) has been in the news lately as a result of Premier Danielle Smith’s announcement – consistent with her platform for leadership of the United Conservative Party and its promise of no more lockdowns – that she would seek an amendment to the AHRA to add vaccination status as a ground protected from discrimination (here, here and here). In her mandate letter to Minister of Justice Tyler Shandro, released on November 10, 2022, Smith included as her second priority – second only to a Sovereignty Act – the instruction to “take any necessary legislative or regulatory steps to prohibit discrimination on the basis of COVID-19 vaccination and/or booster status.” Continue reading →