ABlawg readers may have noticed that we have not posted any comments lately on the new Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010. We have decided to leave that task to our colleagues at JSS Barristers, who released the first issue of its JSS Rules newsletter in April, 2011. You can subscribe to JSS Rules here. Sabri Shawa, who has taught Civil Procedure as a sessional instructor in the Faculty of Law since 2003, advises that JSS Rules will be released quarterly (first in paper and eventually, on-line only) and JSS Barristers will provide updates on new rules cases to subscribers between newsletters. ABlawg may still provide commentary on some new rules cases that intersect with other areas we are blogging, but in the meantime we are pleased to wish our colleagues at JSS Barristers success with their comprehensive new rules initiative.
Category: Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court Page 3 of 5
Case commented on: Nystrom v. Ranson, 2011 ABQB 116
The Plaintiff alleged physical injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident. He claimed that his physical injuries limited his present and future vocational options and claimed past and future lost income. No psychological harm was expressly alleged in the statement of claim. The Plaintiff proposed to introduce expert evidence from an occupational therapist and a vocational counsellor at trial, in addition to the evidence of a physician and an orthopaedic surgeon. The Plaintiff agreed to an examination by two of the Defendants’ experts, an occupational therapist and a vocational therapist, but brought an application to limit the length and scope of those examinations.
Case commented on: Terrace Consulting Inc. v. Jackson, 2011 ABQB 108
The Plaintiff applied for summary judgment to enforce its remedies under an offer to purchase a condominium. The Defendants alleged misrepresentation and contended that they were told they were signing a rent to own contract. They also counterclaimed for damages in the amount of the deposit paid, which they understood to be refundable. The Defendants argued that in light of the misrepresentation, summary judgment should not be granted. The Plaintiff argued that an entire agreement clause in the purchase contract precluded the defence of misrepresentation and summary judgment should be granted.
Case commented on: Lameman v Alberta, 2011 ABQB 40
Alberta and Canada brought applications under the old Rules to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim in the summer of 2009. The matter has been in case management for over two years. The applications to strike were originally set to be heard March 15 – 19, 2010. This was subsequently adjourned until December 6 – 10, 2010 with deadlines fixed for filing briefs. The plaintiffs did not raise a concern about these deadlines at a case management meeting in September 2010 but subsequently brought an adjournment application on October 19, 2010, principally on the basis that they lacked adequate financial resources to proceed.
Case commented on: R. v. Hirsekorn, 2011 ABQB 156
R. v. Hirsekorn is a summary conviction appeal of convictions for shooting wildlife not in regular season and being in possession of wildlife without a valid permit, contrary to ss. 25(1) and 55(1) of the Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c. W-10. At trial, Provincial Court Judge F. C. Fisher rejected Hirsekorn’s argument that the charges should be dismissed because he had an unextinguished Métis right to hunt for food under s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (see 2010 ABPC 385). The Blood Tribe and Siksika Nation applied to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench for intervenor status in the appeal.