Category: Appellate Practice

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: What is the Test for Leave to Appeal from the Decision of a Regulatory Tribunal in Alberta?

Case commented on: Judd v Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, 2014 ABCA 41

The provincial legislature has chosen to “channel” judicial supervision of the decisions of Alberta’s energy regulators to the Alberta Court of Appeal. The legislature achieves this channeling through two linked provisions in the relevant legislation. The first is a strong privative clause which purports (I say purports because such a measure can never be completely successful for constitutional reasons: Crevier v Attorney General of Quebec, [1981] 2 SCR 220, Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9) to exclude ordinary judicial review applications. Then, having purported to close the door, the legislature cracks it open again with a provision that allows an aggrieved party to appeal the regulator’s decision on a point of law or jurisdiction, but only with leave. The leave application is heard by a single judge who is charged with assessing whether the matter should be heard by three of his or her colleagues on the merits of those alleged points of law or jurisdiction. The relevant provisions of the Energy Resources Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c E-10 in force at the time read as follows:

The perils of selling the same property twice (with an aside on styles of appellate decision-making)

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On June 9, 2009

In Appellate Practice, Contracts, Property

Case considered: Castledowns Law Office Management Ltd. v. FastTrack Technologies Inc., 2009 ABCA 148

PDF version: The perils of selling the same property twice (with an aside on styles of appellate decision-making)

This was a dispute between two purchasers of the same piece of commercial real estate in Edmonton, the Vienna Building at 7708-104 Street. The vendor, 1131102 Alberta Ltd, sold the property first to FastTrack Technologies Inc. (FastTrack). That agreement was conditional upon the vendor’s lawyer’s approval. The vendor also entered into a second or back-up agreement with Castledowns Law Office Management Ltd. (Castledowns). The back-up agreement with Castledowns was conditional on “satisfactory confirmation of termination” of the FastTrack agreement. The resolution of the dispute turned on the interpretation to be given those words. This was the issue on which the dissent of Mr. Justice Frans Slatter parted ways with the majority judgment of Madam Justice Carole Conrad, concurred in by Mr. Justice Clifton O’Brien. Was it enough if the vendor could legally terminate the agreement with FastTrack and did so? Or did FastTrack have to ratify any purported termination by the vendor? This contract interpretation issue is perhaps less interesting than the fact that neither the majority nor the dissenting judgment engage with the other on that or any other issue. This style of appellate decision-making has been called “uncooperative” in the empirical literature that examines why justices decide as they do. (See, e.g., Benjamin Alarie and Andrew Green, “Charter Decisions in the McLachlin Era: Consensus and Ideology at the Supreme Court of Canada.”) The label “uncooperative” is not necessarily intended to be pejorative, depending on the reason for the lack of cooperation. Some judges value independence as the best method for achieving internally consistent reasoned decisions. Some Chief Justices encourage certain styles of interaction in the preparation of judgments. Sometimes, however, the lack of cooperation is due to ideological or personal differences. It usually takes a very large number of judgments before the reason becomes clear, with ideological or personal constraints on cooperation tending to lead to more plurality and dissenting judgments.

Read More

2009 Commonwealth Moot – Reflections from the Canadian Team

By Jocelyn Stacey

On June 7, 2009

In Appellate Practice

This year the University of Calgary Gale Cup Team had the honour of representing Canada at the 2009 Commonwealth Moot Competition in Hong Kong. The Commonwealth Moot Competition is held biennially in conjunction with the Commonwealth Law Conference. Each Commonwealth region is permitted to send one representative team to compete in the moot. This year, 11 countries (of the 13 designated regions) were represented at the competition: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, India, Hong Kong, Ghana, South Africa, Singapore, Mozambique, Canada, and Sri Lanka.

Within Canada, teams qualify for the Commonwealth Moot by winning the Gale Cup Moot held annually in Toronto. Two years ago, Osgoode Hall represented Canada in Kenya at the competition. This year, for the first time ever, the University of Calgary won the Gale Cup and had the fortuitous timing of winning in a year in which the Commonwealth Moot took place. Overall, we fared quite well in the competition as we placed 5th based on overall team scores. The South African team, from the University of Pretoria, won the competition.

Sentencing in Sexual Assault Cases – Whither Appellate Guidance?

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 6, 2008

In Appellate Practice, State Responses to Violence

Cases considered: R. v. Jefferson, 2008 ABCA 365; R. v. C.H.L., 2008 ABCA 366.

PDF Version: Sentencing in Sexual Assault Cases – Whither Appellate Guidance?

In two decisions released on back to back days in early November, the Alberta Court of Appeal grappled with the issue of sentencing in serious sexual assault cases. Both judgments were released as Memoranda of Decision, and neither is very helpful in providing guidance to lower court judges for sentencing in this area. The cases call into question the legitimacy of a Practice Note issued by the Court of Appeal to the effect that Memoranda of Decision have less weight than Reasons for Judgment Reserved in sentencing cases. Indeed, in one of the cases the judges themselves question this practice, yet effectively perpetuate it at the same time.

Partition or sale of co-owned property?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On December 1, 2008

In Appellate Practice, Property

Cases considered: Polanski v. Roth, 2008 ABCA 378

PDF Version: Partition or sale of co-owned property?

This brief Memorandum of Judgment delivered from the bench by the Alberta Court of Appeal is notable for a number of reasons. First, the Court of Queen’s Bench judge did not give any reasons for his order but, aside from noting this fact, the Court of Appeal does not appear to be concerned by the lack of reasons and even applies “reasonableness” as the standard of review. How can a judgment given without reasons be assessed as reasonable? Second, the content of a proposal made by the appellant during settlement negotiations is used against him. Ordinarily, communications made for the purpose and in the course of negotiating a settlement are made on a “without prejudice” basis and cannot be used in court as evidence, whether “without prejudice” is expressly claimed for the communication or not. There might have been a reason why the appellant’s settlement proposal was used against him in this case, but none is offered. Third, the appellant would probably have succeeded had his application been brought between 460 and 30 years ago, when the relevant law was three old Imperial statutes dating from 1539, 1540 and 1868. The law was, however, changed to a made-in-Alberta law in 1979, and the 110 year old provision which would have assured the appellant’s win was dropped, seemingly without discussion.