ABLawg - - Page 104

Case Commented On: R v Lindsay, 2019 ABQB 462 (CanLII)

In May 2019, the Honourable Mr. Justice Michael J. Lema of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (ABQB) heard a trial regarding an aggravated assault case. Despite attempting to rely on s 25 (Protection of Persons Administering and Enforcing the Law) and s 34 (Defence of Person) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985 c C-46, Calgary Police Service (CPS) Constable Trevor Lindsay was convicted of aggravated assault in relation to Daniel Haworth, a man who was under his arrest.

The Elephant in the Courtroom Redux

By Shaun Fluker

On July 2, 2019

In Administrative Law, Environmental, Intervenors and Standing

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: The Elephant in the Courtroom Redux

Case Commented On: Zoocheck Canada Inc v Alberta (Minister of Agriculture and Forestry), 2019 ABCA 208 (CanLII)

Lucy the Elephant lives at the Edmonton Valley Zoo and, for more than a decade, her advocates have been calling on government officials to facilitate her transfer to a warmer climate. She is a long-time resident at the Edmonton Zoo (since 1977), and zoo officials responsible for her well-being assert that Lucy is well-cared for at the zoo and that it is not in her best interest to be moved. Her advocates dispute this position, and there is a dedicated campaign for an independent scientific assessment of Lucy that would produce an expert veterinarian opinion on whether she can and/or should be moved. In addition to this battle of medical experts, Lucy’s advocates have appeared before Alberta courts seeking to use the force of law to get the Edmonton Zoo to acquiesce on the move of Lucy. They have been unsuccessful at each turn. The first set of proceedings was almost 10 years ago, and I commented on them in Lucy the Elephant v. Edmonton (City) and in The Elephant in the Courtroom. The focus of this comment is the more recent proceedings and, in particular, the Court of Appeal’s ruling that Lucy’s advocates do not have standing to engage in legal proceedings to challenge the renewal of a permit for the Edmonton Zoo.

Another Interconnection Application Crashes Out

By Nigel Bankes

On June 28, 2019

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Another Interconnection Application Crashes Out

Decision Commented On: AUC Decision 24126-D01-2019, Keyera Energy Ltd, Cynthia Gas Plant Power Plant Application, June 25, 2019

In its Smith decision earlier this year, the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) concluded that a self-generator could only avoid the general “must offer, must exchange” obligations imposed by the Electric Utilities Act, SA 2003, c E-5.1, (EUA; and regulations) and the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, RSA 2000, c H-16, (HEEA) if it fell within one of the prescribed exceptions in the legislative scheme. ABlawg commented on the Smith decision here: Opening a Can of Worms. The AUC followed its Smith decision with two further interconnection applications in April and early June: AUC Decision 23756-DOI-2019, Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. Glacier Power Plant Alteration, April 26, 2019; and AUC Decision 24393-D01-2019, International Paper Canada Pulp Holdings ULC Request for Permanent Connection for 48-Megawatt Power Plant, June 6, 2019. I commented on these latter two decisions here.

At What Stage does the Duty of Self-Accommodation Arise in a Discrimination Analysis?

By Sahani Samarappuli

On June 27, 2019

In Human Rights

By: Sahani Samarappuli

PDF Version: At What Stage does the Duty of Self-Accommodation Arise in a Discrimination Analysis?

Case Commented On: United Nurses of Alberta v Alberta Health Services, 2019 ABQB 255 (CanLII)

As noted in previous posts (see here), the definition of discrimination on the basis of family status has been extended recently to include recognition of childcare responsibilities (see e.g. Canada (Attorney General) v Johnstone, 2014 FCA 110 (CanLII), SMS Equipment v Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, 2015 ABQB 162 (CanLII), both cases discussed below). However, the point at which employers’ duty to accommodate is triggered remains controversial. In particular, the question remains as to how a complainant’s duty of self-accommodation should be dealt with in the discrimination analysis.

Confusing Equality with Tyranny: Repealing the Statement of Principles

By Joshua Sealy-Harrington

On June 26, 2019

In Equality, Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Joshua Sealy-Harrington

PDF Version: Confusing Equality with Tyranny: Repealing the Statement of Principles

Matter Commented on: Law Society of Ontario Statement of Principles

Tomorrow, the Law Society of Ontario will vote on a motion to repeal the Statement of Principles (SOP) requirement for Ontario lawyers and paralegals. Many lawyers opposed to the requirement were recently elected to the Law Society’s governing body. But their opposition is, for the most part, disingenuous — pro speech in form, but anti-diversity in substance.

As background, the SOP requirement asks every Ontario lawyer and paralegal to write an annual statement acknowledging their existing legal obligations relating to equality. It seeks to promote reflection on racism in the legal profession. The statement is private. It is never disclosed to, or scrutinized by, the Law Society. Other than acknowledging one’s existing legal obligations, the statement’s content is entirely up to the author. And the Law Society has never indicated that any lawyers or paralegals would be sanctioned for failing to complete their SOP. It is a modest regulatory requirement.

Constable Convicted of Aggravated Assault in Police Brutality Case

The Elephant in the Courtroom Redux

Another Interconnection Application Crashes Out

At What Stage does the Duty of Self-Accommodation Arise in a Discrimination Analysis?

Confusing Equality with Tyranny: Repealing the Statement of Principles