Author Archives: Nicholas Konstantinov

About Nicholas Konstantinov

B.B.A. (2014), J.D. (2019) (Calgary). Nick Konstantinov is a commercial litigation associate in Calgary.

Third-Party Constitutional Remedies to Unjust Law during Stays in Declarations of Invalidity

By: Nicholas Konstantinov

PDF Version: Third-Party Constitutional Remedies to Unjust Law during Stays in Declarations of Invalidity

Case Commented On: Laverick v Alberta (Transportation Safety Board), 2018 ABQB 57 (CanLII)

In Laverick v Alberta (Transportation Safety Board), 2018 ABQB 57 (CanLII), Justice W. P. Sullivan acknowledged that a third-party applicant may argue for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms against charges under section 88.1 of the Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6 [TSA], the administrative license suspension (“ALS”) regime. Despite the suspended declaration of section 88.1’s invalidity under section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, an applicant may utilise the Court’s decision in Sahaluk v Alberta (Transportation Safety Board), 2017 ABCA 153 (CanLII) [Sahaluk I] (see here for a case commentary) as precedent for a constitutional exemption provided that he or she: 1) pled not guilty, 2) exhausted all statutory remedies, 3) demonstrated personal Charter right violations, and 4) passed the balance of convenience test.  Continue reading →

Self-Incrimination Immunity and Professional Misconduct

By: Nicholas Konstantinov

PDF Version: Self-Incrimination Immunity and Professional Misconduct

Case Commented On: Toy v Edmonton (Police Service), 2018 ABCA 37 (CanLII)

In Toy v Edmonton (Police Service), the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed former Constable Elvin Toy’s appeal of a 2015 ruling that led to his discharge from the force. That year, the Law Enforcement Review Board upheld a Presiding Officer’s decision convicting Toy of deceit and misconduct in the course of fabricating evidence at an earlier proceeding. Toy argued that the Board failed to apply the appropriate standard of review to correct the Presiding Officer’s error in law, which resulted in admitting involuntary testimony that offended his privilege against self-incrimination.  Continue reading →

Approaching the Standard of Review for Standard Form Contracts Remains Unclear

By: Nicholas Konstantinov

PDF Version: Approaching the Standard of Review for Standard Form Contracts Remains Unclear

Case Commented On: EnCana Oil & Gas Partnership v Ardco Services Ltd, 2017 ABCA 401 (CanLII)

This case involves a dispute between EnCana and its payroll supplier, Ardco, over an indemnity provision in their Master Service and Supply Agreement (“Master Agreement”). In 2006, EnCana enlisted the services of Ardco to manage its contract operators. Ardco delivered these services only to EnCana; it paid and provided benefits and insurance to the contractors but was reimbursed by the larger corporation. The hiring and firing, supervision, and onsite management, including the supply of equipment, was EnCana’s responsibility. Continue reading →

The Applicability of Charter Protection to Traffic Safety Laws

By: Nicholas Konstantinov

PDF Version: The Applicability of Charter Protection to Traffic Safety Laws

Case Commented On: Sahaluk v Alberta (Transportation Safety Board), 2017 ABCA 153 (CanLII)

In Sahaluk v Alberta (Transportation Safety Board), Mr. Justice Slatter, writing for the majority (Madam Justice Bielby concurring; Madam Justice Paperny dissenting), examined the constitutionality of Alberta’s recent amendment to the Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c. T-6 (the ‘Act’), specifically section 88.1. The amendment eclipsed previous provincial administrative licence suspension regimes for impaired driving in its manner and degree of punishment, raising inquiries into whether the province overstepped its legislative power and whether it complied with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Using evidence pertaining to the objectives and effects of the amended licence suspension scheme, Justice Slatter allowed the appeal of the chamber’s judge’s decision upholding the law, and declared that while section 88.1 was valid on federalism grounds, it was in violation of sections 7 and 11 of the Charter. Continue reading →