Category Archives: Family

Court of Appeal Reaffirms Gay, Non-bio Dad’s Status as Legal Parent

PDF version: Court of Appeal Reaffirms Gay, Non-bio Dad’s Status as Legal Parent

Case commented on: DWH v DJR, 2013 ABCA 240.

This case began to wind its way through the courts when Mr. H. and Mr. R. split up. Mr. H. and Mr. R. had been living together as partners and they had arranged to have a baby through a friend, Ms. D, using Mr. R.’s sperm.  In exchange they agreed to give Ms. D. sperm for her to have a second baby that she and her partner would raise. Ms. D. gave birth to baby S. and for a short period of time Ms. D. lived with the two men and baby S. Baby S. lived with Mr. H. and Mr. R. for three years until, in June 2006, the couple split up. S. called Mr. H. and Mr. R. “Papa” and “Daddy” respectively. After they split up S. lived with Mr. R.

Continue reading →

Intersection Between Different Legal Areas

PDF version: Intersection Between Different Legal Areas

Case commented on: Basha v Lofca, 2013 ABQB 159.

Introduction

It is quite common for certain legal areas to intersect with others in cases that come before the courts. In the recent Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench case of Basha v Lofca, this intersection arose within the areas of immigration and family law.

Continue reading →

The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case

PDF version: The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case

Case Commented on: Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571

 This decision by Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke was the subject of much media attention when it was released. That attention was well deserved. The lengthy and well-researched decision fills a gap in the jurisprudence and scholarship on vexatious litigants by shining a spotlight on and systematically examining a category of litigants for whom Justice Rooke coined the collective term “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants. These litigants are distinguishable from the more usual types of vexatious litigants because they use a collection of techniques and arguments sold by people Justice Rooke called “gurus.”  His decision is valuable for several reasons: it collects all of the reported Canadian decisions dealing with OPCA litigants, it describes the indicia by which OPCA litigants can be recognized, it describes the concepts they have relied upon and the arguments they have made and why those arguments have all failed in every Canadian court, and it discusses what judges, lawyers, and litigants can do when faced with OPCA litigants.

Continue reading →

The Pleasures and Perils of Holograph Wills

PDF version: The Pleasures and Perils of Holograph Wills

Case Considered: Lubberts Estate, 2012 ABQB 506

 This Court of Queen’s Bench decision interprets a provision in a holograph will.  The case is an example of the not-uncommon human tendency to try to use property to control family members’ behaviour, both before death by way of gift and after death by way of inheritance.  Like many such efforts, this deceased’s handwritten codicils to her lawyer-drawn will and her subsequent holograph will did not do what she wanted them to do.  Instead of the deceased determining who would inherit her property and on what conditions, her family members inherited under generic, unconditional intestate laws.  It is ironic; the more control the deceased tried to exert over what happened to her property on her death, the less say she had in the disposition of her property in the end.

Continue reading →

Non-Fatal Exclusion: The Fatal Accidents Act, Stepchildren, and Equality Rights

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF version: Non-Fatal Exclusion: The Fatal Accidents Act, Stepchildren, and Equality Rights

Case Commented On: Dares v Newman, 2012 ABQB 328

A father died in a motor vehicle accident. For his grief and the loss of his father’s guidance, care and companionship, his biological child received $45,000 in bereavement damages from the at-fault driver’s insurance company under section 8(2)(c) of the Fatal Accidents Act, RSA 2000, c F-8. His two adopted children, who had not spoken to him for twenty years, also received $45,000 each under the same provision. His two stepchildren, to whom he had stood in the place of a parent for twenty years – and who had received his guidance, care and companionship over two decades and who suffered grief on his death – received nothing. This case raises the issue of the extent to which government is entitled to deny benefits to certain claimants for the purpose of restricting legal action against private parties for tortious conduct causing death. Continue reading →