Category: Provincial Court Page 3 of 5

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Let’s Shine Some Light into Creative Environmental Sentencing

Case Commented On: R v Canadian National Railway Company sentencing order dated June 2, 2017 (ABPC)

On June 12 the Alberta government announced that Canadian National Railway Company (CN Rail) had pled guilty to two offences under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12 (EPEA) with respect to the release of hydrocarbons that occurred in April 2015. The penalty imposed on CN Rail was a total of $125,000, consisting of $15,000 in fines and a $110,000 payment in funds directed to the Edmonton and Area Land Trust to support conservation in the Edmonton region with a focus on aquatic and riparian habitat. This payment of funds to the Land Trust is known as a creative environmental sentence, and this post asks some critical questions about how this increasingly popular form of punishment for environmental offences is being implemented in Alberta.

For Golfers: A Classic Bailment Case with an Exclusion Clause Issue

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On May 18, 2017

In Contracts, Property, Provincial Court

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: For Golfers: A Classic Bailment Case with an Exclusion Clause Issue

Case Commented On: Bloomer v Connaught Golf Club, 2017 ABPC 105 (CanLII)

Bailment is an interesting legal concept because it is ubiquitous and because it is at the overlap of contract, property and tort law and yet is its own distinct area of law. However, because the issue in Bloomer v Connaught Golf Club involved an exclusion clause, the exclusive focus of Judge Derek G. Redman’s decision was on contract law (rather than the far more fascinating property law). This case is also factually simple, but those facts might disturb some readers. The Connaught Golf Club — which Mr. Bloomer was a member of — had agreed to store Mr. Bloomer’s golf clubs for him but was unable to find his golf clubs when he came in to play his daily golf game with his wife on June 24, 2016. In other words, the case is about a pro shop in Medicine Hat that lost a club member’s golf bag and its contents.

When are Late Payment of Rent Charges in Residential Tenancies Unenforceable?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On May 10, 2017

In Contracts, Landlord/Tenant, Property, Provincial Court, Statutory Interpretation

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: When are Late Payment of Rent Charges in Residential Tenancies Unenforceable?

Case Commented On: 416566 Alberta Ltd. v Fothergill, 2017 ABPC 96 (CanLII)

This Provincial Court decision by Judge Jerry LeGrandeur, Associate Chief Judge, is of interest because he considers whether the fee a landlord charged for the late payment of rent was a valid pre-estimate of liquidated damages or an illegal penalty. If it is an estimate of damages, the tenant must pay the fee. If it is a penalty, it is unenforceable and the tenant does not have to pay the fee. Judge LeGrandeur’s decision was made under the Mobile Home Sites Tenancies Act, RSA 2000, c M-20, rather than the more often used Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1, but both statutes deal with late payment charges the same way: neither says anything at all about them. As a result, late payment fees can be included in leases and, if tenants agree to pay those fees by signing leases that include them, the tenants have to pay the late payment fees unless those fees are what the common law calls a “penalty.” Judge LeGrandeur’s decision, which is applicable to all types of residential tenancies, is welcome because there is a lack of direction in Alberta about how much can be charged for a late payment fee before it becomes an illegal penalty and unenforceable.

Residential Tenancy Agreements, Options to Purchase, In Terrorem Clauses, and Relief from Forfeiture

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On February 16, 2017

In Contracts, Property, Provincial Court

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Residential Tenancy Agreements, Options to Purchase, In Terrorem Clauses, and Relief from Forfeiture

Case Commented On: Dreamworks Ventures Ltd v Dye, 2017 ABPC 20 (CanLII)

This residential tenancy case, arising in the context of a rent-to-own arrangement, is light on the law. The dispute was primarily about the tenants’ responsibility for cleaning and painting after they left the house and this decision assesses the damages. Nevertheless, the case raised one interesting legal point. Judge Allan H. Lefever mentioned an in terrorem clause in connection with the Option to Purchase that had been granted to the tenants in return for a non-refundable $5,000 deposit that was part of the rent-to-own arrangements. While he mentions the clause, he did not discuss it because it was not relevant to the dispute. The in terrorem clause tried to scare the tenants to stop them from filing a caveat to protect their interest under the Option to Purchase. Can this in terrorem clause possibly be valid? This, it seems, is a difficult question to answer.

Street v Mountford Applied to Decide: A Residential Tenancy Agreement or a Licence?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On January 13, 2017

In Landlord/Tenant, Property, Provincial Court, Statutory Interpretation

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Street v Mountford Applied to Decide: A Residential Tenancy Agreement or a Licence?

Case Commented On: Singh v RJB Developments Inc., 2016 ABPC 305 (CanLII)

This Provincial Court decision by Judge Jerry LeGrandeur, Associate Chief Judge, is of interest primarily because he used the common law in order to determine whether the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA) applied to Jaspreet Singh’s occupation of a portion of a building owned by RJB Developments Inc (RJB). While this resort to the common law in this context is rarely seen, we can expect to encounter it more often, given the increasing variety in short- and long-term residential accommodations. The courts usually do rely on the common law in those few borderline cases, such as this one, where the question is whether the RTA applies, even though the statute appears to answer all questions about its scope. However, when resorting to the common law, the courts — including Judge LeGrandeur in this case — do not always indicate why they believe it is both necessary and possible to do so. This is unfortunate because the RTA is usually used by non-lawyers who often rely on explanations of the statute that are provided by Service Alberta (e.g., RTA Handbook and Quick Reference Guide) or non-profit organizations such as the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta (e.g., Renting 101: A Guide to Renting in Alberta). None of those explanations indicate that landlords and tenants need to look outside the RTA to find out if it applies; they all simply paraphrase the statute.