Author: Jonnette Watson Hamilton Page 33 of 43

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

Case considered: Rachar v. Litvak, 2009 ABQB 441

PDF version: The Animal Keepers Act: Perennial Problems of Priority

This is the first case to consider the Animal Keepers Act, S.A. 2005, c. A-40.5, a piece of legislation which came into force in November of 2005. It replaced a 101-year-old statute, the Livery Stable Keepers Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.L-14, which was originally enacted in 1884 as an ordinance of the North-West Territories and applied to the area that would become Alberta. According to the Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Animal Keepers Act “provides a person who boards or cares for an animal a means of collecting outstanding bills owed by the owner of such animals with priority over all other liens, bills of sales, etc. without the use of costly, complicated legal processes.” The new Act seems to live up to this description. While extensively used by the cattle industry and other keepers of livestock, neither this Act nor its predecessor have been the subject of much judicial consideration. Those rare disputes that have been taken to court tend to involve issues of priority among creditors, as does this case.

A Vote for R v Kapp as the Leading Equality Case of the Past Decade

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On January 13, 2010

In Constitutional, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: A Vote for R v Kapp as the Leading Equality Case of the Past Decade

Case Commented On: R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41

R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 is my nominee for the most significant case of the Aughts decade in the equality rights area. Kapp was destined to be a landmark case, if only because it involved the first direct challenge on the enumerated ground of race under the Charter‘s equality guarantee that was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, because the Court used Kapp as a vehicle to substantially and substantively revise its approach to section 15 claims, the decision is even more significant.

Perhaps the Last Court of Appeal Decision on the Availability of Specific Performance for Agreements for the Sale and Purchase of Land

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On December 22, 2009

In Property

Case considered: Covlin v. Minhas, 2009 ABCA 404

PDF version: Perhaps the Last Court of Appeal Decision on the Availability of Specific Performance for Agreements for the Sale and Purchase of Land

If the recommendations in the October 2009 Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) Final Report No. 97, entitled “Contracts for the Sale and Purchase of Land: Purchasers’ Remedies,” are implemented, cases like Covlin v. Minhas will disappear from Alberta court dockets. ALRI recommended that the law governing remedies for breaches of such contracts be restored to what it was prior to the 1996 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Semelhago v. Paramadevan, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 415. The only issue in Covlin v. Minhas was whether the plaintiff, Verna Covlin, who was the purchaser under a contract for the sale and purchase of land, was entitled to the remedy of specific performance. Prior to Semelhago, specific performance for breach of a real estate contract was granted as a matter of course. Post-Semelhago, however, Covlin had to prove the land she offered to purchase was “unique” in the sense that no substitute is available for it. ALRI’s Final Report No. 97 recommends that legislation be enacted to provide that any land which is the subject of a contract for sale and purchase is conclusively deemed to be unique at all material times.

Is every vendor of land an “unpaid vendor”?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On December 14, 2009

In Property

Case considered: 1279017 Alberta Ltd. v. 1257613 Alberta Ltd., 2009 ABCA 364

PDF version: Is every vendor of land an “unpaid vendor”?

In 1279017 Alberta Ltd. v. 1257613 Alberta Ltd., the Alberta Court of Appeal split 2:1 on the question of whether 1257613 Alberta Ltd. had an interest in land that would support the caveat and certificate of lis pendens that it had filed against an 80 acre parcel of land registered in the name of 1279017 Alberta Ltd. The vendor’s interest in land was said to be an unpaid vendor’s lien that arose as a result of a real estate purchase contract between 1257613 and 1279017. Had the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice J.D. Bruce McDonald prevailed in this case, virtually every vendor of land, paid in full or not, would be an unpaid vendor and entitled to caveat another’s land. Fortunately, the majority position of Madam Justice Constance Hunt and Mr. Justice Keith Ritter won through. The unpaid vendor’s lien only continued until payment by the purchaser.

Staying Arbitration Proceedings under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On November 18, 2009

In Arbitration, Supreme Court of Canada

Case considered: Lamb v. AlanRidge Homes Ltd., 2009 ABCA 343

PDF version: Staying Arbitration Proceedings under Section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act

Lamb v. AlanRidge Homes Ltd. is an interesting case, in part because the Alberta Court of Appeal calls upon the Alberta legislature to review and amend section 7 of the Arbitration Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-43, a section the court criticizes (at para. 16) as “far from a model of clarity.” Calls for legislative action by the courts are not that common. The case is also interesting because section 7 is perhaps the provision most often used by the courts, as it is the provision that requires a court to stay a court action when asked to do so by a party to an agreement to arbitrate.It is, however, a section rarely considered by the Court of Appeal because subsection 7(6) provides that there is no appeal from an order of the Court of Queens’ Bench staying an action or refusing a stay under section 7. The case is also interesting because Alberta’s Arbitration Act is based upon the Uniform Arbitration Act which was prepared by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada in 1989, as were the arbitration statutes in six other provinces. Section 7 was carefully drafted and debated by the Commissioners. It seems somewhat odd to think that, twenty years later, there are basic problems with interpreting and applying that provision.