Author Archives: Nickie Nikolaou

About Nickie Nikolaou

Nickie Nikolaou, B.A. (Sask.), LL.B. (Alberta), LL.M. (Calgary). Associate Professor. Member of the Alberta Bar. Please click here for more information.

Recovering Increased Rent From a Residential Tenant After Serving a Termination Notice

By: Nickie Vlavianos

PDF Version: Recovering Increased Rent From a Residential Tenant After Serving a Termination Notice

Case Commented On: Merkl v Wallburger, 2008 ABPC 264

In 2007, amendments were made to Alberta’s residential tenancy legislation to give tenants some protection from the challenges of rent increases and the difficulties of finding affordable rental accommodations in a province experiencing an economic boom. Many critics said the amendments did not go far enough. This recent decision of Provincial Court Judge Derek G. Redman highlights the piecemeal nature of these amendments, and the fact that, despite the amendments, Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Act, S.A. 2004, c. 17.1 (RTA) remains a landlord-friendly statute.

Continue reading →

Obtaining Leave to Intervene in a Leave to Appeal Application

Cases Considered: Provident Energy Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2008 ABCA 316

PDF Version:  Obtaining Leave to Intervene in a Leave to Appeal Application

This decision deals with a unique and interesting point of civil procedure. It answers the following question: what is the test for obtaining leave to intervene in a leave to appeal application before Alberta’s Court of Appeal?

Continue reading →

Landowners, Procedural Fairness and Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board

Cases Considered: Domke v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2008 ABCA 232.

PDF Version:  Landowners, Procedural Fairness and Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board

In a break from what seemed to be a growing trend, Mr. Justice Keith Ritter has refused leave to appeal to a group of landowners with respect to an Energy Resources Conservation Board (“ERCB”) decision. Perhaps because of the unfortunate result in Graff v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 119 (see my post on this decision ), Justice Ritter focused on one component of the test for leave – whether the appeal was prima facie meritorious – and dismissed the application. He looked at the facts and at the evidence and decided there was no merit to any of the proposed grounds of appeal. While it is hard to quarrel with all of Justice Ritter’s conclusions, ultimately his decision raises some troubling questions about procedural fairness and the ability of landowners to participate effectively in ERCB proceedings.

Continue reading →

Minimum Housing Standards for Residential Tenancies Upheld

By: Nickie Vlavianos

PDF Version: Minimum Housing Standards for Residential Tenancies Upheld

Cases Commented On: BPCL Holdings Inc. v Alberta, 2008 ABCA 153

Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”), S.A. 2004, c. R-17.1, is generally speaking a landlord-friendly statute. It is not replete with protections for tenants. One important exception is s. 16(c), a fairly recent addition to the RTA. Section 16(c) requires landlords to ensure that rental premises “meet at least the minimum standards prescribed by housing premises under the Public Health Act and regulations.” Clearly, the Legislature intended some minimal health and safety protection for tenants.

Continue reading →

A Lost Opportunity for Clarifying Public Participation Issues in Oil and Gas Decision Making

Cases Considered: Graff v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 119

PDF Version: A Lost Opportunity for Clarifying Public Participation Issues in Oil and Gas Decision Making

Those of us following the year-long journey of the Graff family (the “Graffs”) through the Court of Appeal were stunned when the final decision was handed down on March 26, 2008. While the grounds upon which leave to appeal had been granted held out promises of clarification on certain key public participation issues in oil and gas development, none of these grounds were ultimately dealt with by the Court. Instead, both appeals (heard together) were dismissed on the basic procedural point that parties requesting standing before the Energy and Utilities Board (the “EUB”, now the ERCB) must provide at least some relevant evidence to support their claim of being “directly and adversely” affected.
Continue reading →