Category: COVID-19 Page 3 of 7

Case Commented On: 20005321 (Re), 2020 ABRTDRS 20 (CanLII)

This decision by a Tenancy Dispute Officer (TDO), J. Lambert, of Alberta’s Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) is notable for three reasons. The first – and probably the most helpful to the widest range of landlords and tenants – is the discussion about whether or not a tenant’s failure to produce evidence of tenant’s insurance as required by their residential tenancy agreement is a “substantial breach” that entitles the landlord to evict the tenant. It seems that many residential tenancy agreements require tenants to obtain insurance for their own property – contents insurance – and many tenants do not bother to do so. The second reason is its consideration of Ministerial Order No SA:005/2020, which was intended to offer some help to tenants who could not pay their rent due to COVID-19. That Ministerial Order lapsed on August 14, 2020, so whatever impact it had should be apparent by now. But because of structural problems such as the small percentage of RTDRS decisions made public and the closure of courts to eviction cases at the beginning of the pandemic, we will probably never know whether or what kind of difference that Ministerial Order made. We do have a hint of its impact in the decision in 20005321 (Re), but it is only a hint. The third reason this decision is notable is that it is one of only 24 RTDRS decisions made public so far in 2020. The publication of some RTDRS decisions was a recent and deliberate commitment to “improved access to justice by publishing written RTDRS decisions through the CanLII database”, according to the Service Alberta Annual Report 2019/2020 (at 19). This decision contributes toward that goal, but more is needed.

COVID-19 and Masking in Alberta K-12 Schools

By Shaun Fluker

On September 3, 2020

In COVID-19, Health Law

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and Masking in Alberta K-12 Schools

Order Commented On: Record of Decision CMOH Order 33-2020

Many parents and their children are excited about the return to K-12 school, but they are also anxious about the potential for a COVID-19 outbreak at their schools. The barrage of information delivered to parents in the past week by schools regarding protocols for COVID-19 probably isn’t helping to ease any feelings of discomfort. Nor are reports that some schools have already delayed the start of classes because of an infection. Now is the time for a voice of authority to give assurance that the Government of Alberta has taken all possible measures to assess and mitigate the risk of contracting COVID-19 in schools. These measures would include the enactment of rules governing a return to school which are clear, organized, justified, and developed in a transparent process. Instead, the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) and the Premier have been responding to criticism and confusion about the return to school plan, and in particular the rules pertaining to masking and social distancing in Alberta’s K-12 schools. This is a very unfortunate outcome and is raising questions of trust in the CMOH, but it does not come as a surprise to me. I have been following Alberta’s COVID-19 law and policy since the declaration of the public health emergency in March, and I have consistently remarked that CMOH decisions have been plagued with non-transparency and disorganization (see here). This messy approach to lawmaking breeds confusion, and that is exactly what has transpired here. With these thoughts in mind, this post takes a critical look at the back to school rules set out in CMOH Order 33-2020.

COVID-19, Domestic Violence, and Technology-Facilitated Abuse

By Jennifer Koshan

On July 13, 2020

In Access to Justice, COVID-19, Family

By: Jennifer Koshan, Janet Mosher, and Wanda Wiegers

PDF Version: COVID-19, Domestic Violence, and Technology-Facilitated Abuse

On 27 May 2020, UN Women launched the “shadow pandemic” public awareness campaign, drawing attention to the global spike in domestic violence linked to COVID-19. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Executive Director of UN Women, describes the idea of a shadow pandemic as follows: “Even before the [COVID-19] pandemic, violence against women was one of the most widespread violations of human rights. Since lockdown restrictions, domestic violence has multiplied, spreading across the world in a shadow pandemic.”

We are in the midst of a multi-year research project on domestic violence and access to justice across Canada, but decided to shift our attention this spring/summer to the legal and policy responses to domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. One aspect of our research examines the responses of courts, including what sorts of matters they consider “urgent” enough to hear during the pandemic, and how urgent cases involving domestic violence are being dealt with on the merits. We found 67 relevant cases reported on Can LII between March 16 and June 1, 2020, with relevance meaning that the cases deal with domestic violence issues that were related to the pandemic in some way. These cases span the areas of family, child protection, criminal, and protection order law. One cross-cutting theme in the case law is surveillance and technology-facilitated abuse, which is the subject of this post. We also provide some comments on access to justice issues raised by our case law sample.

Some Comments on Bill 24, the COVID-19 Pandemic Response Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

By Shaun Fluker

On July 10, 2020

In Administrative Law, COVID-19, Rule of Law

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Some Comments on Bill 24, the COVID-19 Pandemic Response Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

Legislation Commented On: Bill 24, the COVID-19 Pandemic Response Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, 2nd Sess, 30th Leg, Alberta, 2020

Lawmaking by the Alberta government in response to COVID-19 has been somewhat disorganized and very non-transparent. As well, Alberta seems to be the only Canadian jurisdiction which seized on the public health emergency as an opportunity to double-down on Henry VIII lawmaking by the Executive. These are troubling observations in a political system where the legitimacy of governance is based upon an open, accountable, and predictable legislative process. The need to act swiftly and flatten the curve of COVID-19 certainly justified some deviation from the lawmaking norm in a representative democracy, but Alberta has relied extra heavily on executive and delegated legislative authority in its COVID-19 lawmaking. Accordingly, it would have been reasonable to expect the Legislature to restore some normalcy to lawmaking when the state of public emergency ended in Alberta on June 15.

On June 18, the Minister of Health introduced Bill 24, the COVID-19 Pandemic Response Statutes Amendment Act, 2020 into the Legislature, and most of the Act came into force on June 26 with royal assent. As the Legislature’s first comprehensive post-emergency response to COVID-19, as opposed to subject-specific legislation or the lawmaking thus far enacted by the Executive and its delegates, it is disappointing to observe how little this statute offers. However, on its first reading the Minister of Health did at least promise a forthcoming comprehensive review of the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c P-37, and Bill 24 requires this to commence no later than August 1.

eQuestioning: Oral Questioning in Litigation in the Era of Social Distancing

By Gideon Christian

On June 22, 2020

In Civil Procedure, Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court, COVID-19

By: Gideon Christian

PDF Version: eQuestioning: Oral Questioning in Litigation in the Era of Social Distancing

In adversarial litigation, oral questioning is an out-of-court pre-trial or pre-hearing proceeding where a party to litigation orally examines (by way of questioning) under oath another party adverse in interest, or their agents, for the purpose of adducing information that may be used as evidence. In the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 (Alberta ROC), oral questioning can take the form of questioning for discovery (Rules 5.17 and 5.22) or questioning on application (Rules 6.7 and 6.8). Before the COVID-19 crisis and its social-distancing requirements, the default method of oral questioning in civil litigation was in person, with the parties and their lawyers present at a physical location accessible to all, such as the lawyer’s office or some other location chosen by the parties. A certified court reporter must also be present, who swears the witnesses and also takes record of the ‘question and answer’ proceeding.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in public health and judicial directives enforcing isolation and social-distancing rules. Consequentially, in-person questioning became impractical on public health grounds. Although the justice system was substantially paralysed by the pandemic, litigation must go on even in that state of paralysis. In response to the realities imposed on the justice system, in-person oral questioning gave way to virtual or remote questioning using audio- or video-conferencing technologies. This method of questioning is what I refer to in this post as eQuestioning (short for electronic questioning).

Category: COVID-19 Page 3 of 7

Tenant’s Insurance, Ministerial Order No SA:005/2020 and Evictions of Residential Tenants

COVID-19 and Masking in Alberta K-12 Schools

COVID-19, Domestic Violence, and Technology-Facilitated Abuse

Some Comments on Bill 24, the COVID-19 Pandemic Response Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

eQuestioning: Oral Questioning in Litigation in the Era of Social Distancing