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.

How persistent does a vexatious litigant have to be?

PDF version:  How persistent does a vexatious litigant have to be?

Case considered: Wong v Giannacopoulos, 2011 ABCA 206

Are the 2007 vexatious litigant provisions in the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, being overused? Is it too easy to have a person declared a “vexatious litigant and barred from bringing or continuing court actions without leave of a court? I am sure that every person who has had a vexatious litigant order made against them would answer “yes” to both questions, but what might a more detached assessment reveal? These questions demand empirical answers that I cannot give. However, the recent decision of Justice Frans Slatter in Wong v Giannacopoulos suggests that vexatious litigant orders are only being granted in rather extreme cases. It seems to take a lot of improper behaviour against a variety of long-suffering defendants before a person is denied unmediated access to a court.

Continue reading →

It’s Difficult to Disinherit Some Adult Children

PDF version: It’s Difficult to Disinherit Some Adult Children 

Case considered: Soule v. Johansen Estate, 2011 ABQB 403

Alberta Justice has spent the past few years reviewing provincial succession laws and proposing reforms to consolidate and update the relevant provincial statutes. The result of the Alberta Succession Law Reform project was the passage of the new Wills and Succession Act, SA 2010, c W12.2 by the Alberta legislature in the fall of 2010 (Bill 21). However, because the changes are extensive, the new Wills and Succession Act will not come into force until it is proclaimed and proclamation is not expected until early 2012. It is interesting to consider whether or not the result in Soule v. Johansen Estate would have been any different under new law. In her will, Elsie Carrolle Johansen left all of her $116,000 estate to the Calgary Humane Society. She chose to disinherit her only son, Kim Soule, a 51 year old man suffering from hepatitis C, because she did not want her estate to be spent on drugs and alcohol. He asked the court to re-write his mother’s will under the Dependants Relief Act, RSA 2000, c D-10.5, because he is unable to earn a livelihood. Although Mr. Soule did not appear to be a sympathetic supplicant, he nevertheless prevailed. Justice Sheilah Martin rewrote his mother’s will to give all but $10,000 of his mother’s estate to Mr. Soule. Her main reason for doing so appears to be the predominantly pragmatic one of relieving taxpayers of the burden of Mr. Soule’s support.

Continue reading →

The Effect of Non-compliance with the Dower Act – Yet Again

PDF version: The Effect of Non-compliance with the Dower Act – Yet Again 

Case considered: Webb (Re), 2011 ABQB 89

The context of this dower case is somewhat unusual. The Registrar in Bankruptcy had directed a trial to determine whether a caveat registered by a Mr. Karafiat, which claimed a secured interest in a homestead, was invalid because it did not comply with the Dower Act. The parties’ concession that non-compliance with the requirements of the Dower Act, RSA 2000, c D-15 did not render the disposition of the homestead void is also somewhat unusual. This is the first case that I am aware of in which the parties conceded that non-compliance rendered the transaction voidable, and not void. It is true there has been a trend in Alberta towards finding that the effect of a disposition of a homestead without the consent of a spouse is to render the disposition voidable, and not void. However, the matter is not free from doubt because the Supreme Court of Canada’s last word on the issue held such a disposition was void ab initio.

Continue reading →

The Full Implications of Demonstrable Integration: A Roundtable Discussion on West Moberley

PDF version: The Full Implications of Demonstrable Integration: A Roundtable Discussion on West Moberley

Case considered: West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia, 2011 BCCA 247

Summer at the law school provides faculty members with the opportunity to get on with some research and writing and, in particular, the larger projects that there isn’t the opportunity to tackle during the teaching terms. Law school is also a quieter place at this time with fewer LLB/ JD students around. But there is always a good number of summer students – some employed by Student Legal Assistance (SLA) for clinical duties and others employed by faculty members, the Alberta Law Reform Institute, the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre and Canadian Institute of Resources Law on various research projects. One of the other things that we try and do over the summer to enrich the research environment for summer students, graduate students and faculty members alike is to hold a number of roundtable discussions on recent important judicial decisions. Last year, for example, we had a discussion of Supreme Court of Canada freedom of expression decisions (R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16; Toronto Star v. Canada, 2010 SCC 21; Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association, 2010 SCC 23) and a discussion of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo. Our first roundtable discussion this year focused on the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia, 2011 BCCA 247, a recent Treaty 8 consultation case which also deals with a SARA (Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29) listed species (woodland caribou). The Attorney General of Alberta appeared as an intervenor on the appeal, undoubtedly because much of northern Alberta is covered by Treaty 8.

Continue reading →

Specific Performance of Contracts for the Sale and Purchase of Land: Is Deeming Land to be Unique Enough to Return to Pre-Semelhago Days?

PDF version: Specific Performance of Contracts for the Sale and Purchase of Land: Is Deeming Land to be Unique Enough to Return to Pre-Semelhago Days? 

Case commented on: Raymond v. Raymond Estate, 2011 SKCA 58

Fifteen years ago, before the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Semelhago v. Paramadevan, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 415, 1996 CanLII 209 (S.C.C.), it was taken for granted that land is inherently unique and therefore, as a matter of course, the equitable remedy of specific performance would be awarded for breaches of contracts for the sale of real property. However, in Semelhago, Justice Sopinka questioned those assumptions, stating in obiter dicta on behalf of the majority that specific performance should “not be granted as a matter of course absent evidence that the property is unique to the extent that its substitute would not be readily available” (at para. 22). Subsequent confusion in the case law about under what circumstances specific performance is available and the unforeseen consequences of the loss of automatic grants of specific performance in a Torrens land titles system attracted the attention of the Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI). Its October 2009 Final Report No. 97 on Contract for the Sale and Purchase of Land: Purchasers’ Remedies recommended (at paras. 8, 61) that “for the purpose of determining whether a purchaser under a contract for the sale of land is entitled to specific performance of the contract, the land that is the subject of the contract be conclusively deemed to be unique at all material times, and legislation should be enacted to that effect”. However, no such legislation has been tabled in the Alberta legislature in the past 18 months. Now, the May 2011 decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Raymond v. Raymond Estate suggests that ALRI’s recommendation, even if enacted, may not be enough to return the law to its pre-Semelhago state. It does so by holding that Semelhago introduced a two part test for the granting of specific performance, with an objective component and a subjective one. It appears that the ALRI recommendation only addresses the objective component.

Continue reading →