Cases Considered: Boardwalk REIT LLP v. Edmonton (City), 2008 ABCA 176
PDF Version: “Improper Jumps in Reasoning” on Judicial Disqualification says Court of Appeal
Enough already! That’s the Alberta Court of Appeal’s message on judicial disqualification applications. The court is not saying, “leave potential bias issues to us.” It is merely reinforcing the time honoured “reasonable apprehension of bias” principle. But there is a twist in this case. In fact, there are two.
Cases Considered: Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited v. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development et al, 2008 FC 598,
My initial post on the Kearl project (see Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin) was accurate after all. Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s decision in Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302, that held the Kearl joint panel breached section 34 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37, was simply a brief foray into environmental bliss. On June 6, 2008, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans re-issued the requisite authorization under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, to Imperial Oil, reportedly on identical terms and conditions as set out in the original authorization (see my previous post Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization for more discussion on the nullification of the initial authorization).
Cases Considered: Searles v.
Government compensation payable to physicians in
Cases Considered: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v.
In 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the then Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (“Board”) (now the Alberta Utilities Commission (“Commission”)) had no jurisdiction to allocate proceeds of disposition on the sale of a utility asset, even to ameliorate harm to customers that might arise from that sale. The Court held that while the Board has some jurisdiction to impose conditions on the sale of an asset – to, for example, give “due consideration to any new economic data anticipated as a result of the sale” (ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board) 2006 SCC 4 at para. 81 (“AGPL”)) – that power did not allow the Board to “confiscate” any net gains enjoyed by a utility upon disposition.
Cases Considered: Johnston v.
PDF Version: Disinterment of RCMP Officer may proceed despite parents’ wishes
In a previous post, I reviewed a number of decisions of the
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén
