Category: Uncategorized Page 3 of 10

By: Deanne Sowter

PDF Version: What is Non-Adversarial Advocacy?

There is no provision in the Federation of Law Societies Model Code that specifically regulates non-adversarial advocacy. The Code has an Advocacy section (R 5.1) and it distinguishes advocacy in an adversarial process, but it does not have a corresponding section for advocacy in a non-adversarial process. There is no universal definition of non-adversarial advocacy. In 2016, I conducted empirical research on advocacy in the family law context, and drawing from that I argued that the Code needs to be updated to include non-adversarial advocacy. (See here.) In that study, I talked to collaborative lawyers and family lawyers who have a settlement-oriented practice. Those processes inform the type of advocacy expected and required. However, not all dispute resolution processes can be neatly packed into one category or the other, nor do all disputes involve sides that subscribe to the same approach to advocacy. In this post, I question whether it is the process that distinguishes adversarialness.

Read More

By: Daniella Marchand and Nafisa Abdul Razak

PDF Version: Is Now the Time to Consider Anti-SLAPP Legislation in Alberta? A Reflection on Pointes Protection

Case Commented On:  1704604 Ontario Limited v. Pointes Protection Association, et al; 1704604 Ontario Ltd. v Pointes Protection Association, 2018 ONCA 685 (CanLII)

In November of last year, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) heard a case between 1704604 Ontario Limited and the Pointes Protection Association involving Ontario’s attempt at curbing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). As we expect a decision from the SCC soon, it is an appropriate time to reflect on how the Pointes Protectioncase has the potential to impact implementation of anti-SLAPP legislation in Alberta. At the center of the case was a recent revision to Ontario’s Rules of Court, which has been commonly referred to as an ‘anti-SLAPP’ provision.

Read More

By: Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle

PDF Version: Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Cruel and unusual punishment

Case Commented On: R v Charboneau, 2019 ABQB 882 (CanLII)

In this case, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice L.R.A. Ackerl struck down the mandatory minimum six month sentence in s 286.1(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985 c C-46, as provided for the offence of obtaining sexual services from a minor. In this ruling, Justice Ackerl declared that the mandatory minimum sentence was not grossly disproportionate for the accused (Mr. Charboneau), but it would be unconstitutional for an individual in reasonably foreseeable cases.

Read More

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Keeping an Eye on Foreclosing Banks

Case Commented On: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Strihavka, 2019 ABQB 835

Who is keeping an eye on the conduct and claims of banks and other financial institutions that are foreclosing on people’s homes in Alberta? In at least one case – this case of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Strihavka – it was a Master of the Court of Queen’s Bench who discovered a bank was providing false or, at least, misleading evidence and the bank’s lawyer was not living up to their professional responsibilities, all for the purpose of taking a person’s home away from them more quickly than allowed at law. Whether this one case is an aberration due to an isolated act of carelessness, negligence or malice, or whether this case is one of many is unclear. The facts suggest there might be systemic issues in foreclosure proceedings in this province.

Read More