Category Archives: COVID-19

Alberta Court Grants Injunctive Relief in a Constitutional Case

PDF Version: Alberta Court Grants Injunctive Relief in a Constitutional Case

Case Commented On: A.C. and J.F. and her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (19 March 2020), Edmonton 2003-048252020 (ABQB) (Transcript available here)

On March 19, 2020, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Tamara Friesen granted a temporary injunction prohibiting the Alberta Government from implementing an amendment of the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Regulation, Alta Reg 160/2004, which lowered the age of eligibility from 24 to 22 for young adults receiving financial and social support under the Support and Financial Assistance (SFA) program. This temporary injunction will apply until the Court hears and rules on the issue of whether the amendment unjustifiably violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Continue reading →

Residential Tenancies in Alberta: Evictions for Non-Payment of Rent No Longer Suspended

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Residential Tenancies in Alberta: Evictions for Non-Payment of Rent No Longer Suspended

Legislation Commented On: Tenancies Statutes (Emergency Provisions) Amendment Act, 2020 (Bill 11); Late Payment Fees and Penalties Regulation, Alta Reg 55/2020; and six Ministerial Orders issued in relation to COVID-19

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Alberta government has issued six ministerial orders that affect residential tenancies, as well as one regulation and one amending statute. All eight instruments are described in terms of the changes they make to pre-pandemic residential tenancy law in a table towards the end of this post. For the most part, however, this post focuses on the two ministerial orders dealing with evictions. Ministerial Order No. 20/2020 temporarily suspended the enforcement of some of the eviction orders made by the tenancy dispute officers of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) or by judges of the Provincial Court or Court of Queen’s Bench. Eviction order enforcement was suspended only if the reason to terminate the tenancy was for the failure to pay rent and/or utilities and nothing else, and only if that failure to pay was due to circumstances beyond the tenant’s control caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Just how civil enforcement agencies have been deciding if those reasons are present is unknown. The suspension of evictions only lasts until Ministerial Order No. 20/2020 lapses. It lapses on the earliest of April 30, 2020, or when the Minister of Justice or the provincial Cabinet terminates it, or 60 days after the Order in Council declaring the state of public health emergency lapses – unless it is sooner continued by a Cabinet order. It appears that the suspension will end on April 30. What happens to evictions on and after May 1? The answer to that question is dictated by Ministerial Order No. SA: 005/2020, which imposes on landlords a duty to negotiate payment plans with their tenants. A landlord cannot get a court or RTDRS order to terminate a tenancy (or to pay rent in arrears or compensation for overholding) unless the landlord can prove either that the tenant failed to carry through on an agreed payment plan or, if there is no agreed payment plan, that the landlord “made reasonable efforts to enter into a meaningful payment plan” before applying to the court or RTDRS. Barring a last-minute Cabinet order, Ministerial Order No. SA: 005/2020 will be the only law standing between tenants who cannot pay their rent due to COVID-19 and their eviction after May 1. Continue reading →

Regulating Covid-19 From the Criminal Law Perspective

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: Regulating Covid-19 From the Criminal Law Perspective

The focus of this post is criminal law. This is a bold statement considering we are, with this COVID-19 crisis, currently deeply within the regulatory world. There is so much to unpack in the area of regulation and COVID-19 that to focus on one area is dissatisfying. There are, however, many of my colleagues both here in Alberta and across the country discussing various aspects of the regulatory “new normal”. Specifically, I suggest a look at ABlawg where there are a number of COVID-19 related posts from colleagues writing in their areas of expertise such as statutory interpretation and law-making, health, human rights, environmental and energy law. Many of these areas overlap with the criminal law perspective but I will try to keep this post anchored in more classical criminal law concerns. This will require a discussion of regulatory offences, specifically those arising in the time of COVID-19, which enforce a regulatory scheme through the criminal sanction. By using criminal law concepts to enforce the regulatory scheme, these regulatory offences are subject to those criminal law legal principles which describe, define and confine offences. In this discussion, I will look at the general precepts of regulatory offences, how this form of liability connects to traditional criminal law concepts and then apply our knowledge to a COVID-19 measure involving social or physical distancing. This application will be done through a survey of that measure across Canada to identify the ways in which we are responding in the context of regulation. This survey will provide the basis for some preliminary recommendations based on lessons learned through the review of these regulatory, and in some instances, non-regulatory measures. Continue reading →

COVID-19 and the Exercise of Legislative Power by the Executive

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: COVID-19 and the Exercise of Legislative Power by the Executive

Legislation Commented On: Regulations Act, RSA 2000, c R-14 and Public Health Orders issued in relation to COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has become a rare opportunity to study the widespread exercise of emergency lawmaking powers in Canada. Governments have enacted legal rules on matters such as social distancing, quarantine, economic controls, regulatory relief, employment standards, landlord-tenant, access to justice, and health care protocols. Commentators have warned that we must remain vigilant in ensuring these emergency measures do not offend the rule of law, and this message is likely to intensify as more emergency measures are used to either further the current shutdown or control our emergence from it; for example, in relation to surveillance and privacy rights as Joel Reardon, Emily Laidlaw, and Greg Hagen recently noted here. These substantive concerns are amplified by the fact that most COVID-19 emergency powers are being exercised by the executive branch of government and its delegates, using legislative power delegated to them in public health or emergency statutes. Because it is unlikely that legislatures envisioned such an extensive use of these powers for a prolonged time period, shortcomings and gaps in the lawmaking process are becoming apparent. Hallmarks such as organization, clarity, predictability, consistency, transparency, and justification – which, in normal times, provide the executive with much of its legitimacy to govern – have been impaired or are missing altogether in the exercise of legal power to contain COVID-19. This post examines how Alberta ministers and the Chief Medical Officer of Health have been exercising emergency powers so far during the pandemic, and makes some pointed observations on the hallmarks of legitimate governance and the role of the Regulations Act, RSA 2000, c R-14, in this regard. Continue reading →

Domestic Violence and Legal Issues Related to COVID-19, Part II

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Domestic Violence and Legal Issues Related to COVID-19, Part II

In my last post, I discussed domestic violence dimensions of the responses of the government and judiciary in Alberta to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing primarily on provincial law and policy. This follow-up post reviews additional provincial laws and policies (including those related to protection orders and employment/occupational health and safety), federal laws (including those governing protection orders on First Nations reserves, immigration, and employment), and the overarching human rights context for responses to domestic violence and COVID-19 by governments and private actors such as employers. Continue reading →