ABLawg - - Page 107

Case Commented On: Kozina v Knecht, 2019 ABQB 355

This is a decision by Mr. Justice Brian R. Burrows ruling that the applicant (Kozina) has standing to seek judicial review of a decision made by the Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board (Board). It seems that the applicant’s standing was contested at the outset of the judicial review hearing on March 29, and thus Justice Burrows initially heard submissions on standing. The merits of the judicial review application will now proceed at a later date. This ruling is of interest to me because of my ongoing work on standing to commence proceedings and also because the case involves the relationship between judicial review and a statutory right of appeal.

Canada v Chhina: Supreme Court Makes Habeas Corpus Available to Immigration Detainees

By Amy Matychuk

On May 17, 2019

In Immigration and Refugee Law

By: Amy Matychuk

PDF Version: Canada v Chhina: Supreme Court Makes Habeas Corpus Available to Immigration Detainees

Case Commented On: Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Chhina, 2019 SCC 29

On May 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its judgment in Canada v Chhina (Chhina SCC). It held that habeas corpus is available to immigration detainees where the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA) does not provide a complete, comprehensive and expert statutory scheme equally as broad and advantageous as habeas corpus. Justice Andromache Karakatsanis, for the 6-1 majority, found that the IRPA’s procedures for reviewing the legality of immigration detention are not broad enough to preclude detainees from seeking habeas corpus as an alternative remedy. Justice Rosalie Abella, dissenting, would have held that the IRPA should be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee the fullest possible range of scrutiny for the legality of immigration detention.

Summary Judgment Not Available in a Farmout Case

By Nigel Bankes

On May 15, 2019

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Summary Judgment Not Available in a Farmout Case

Cases commented on: (1) Teine Energy Limited v Audax Investments Ltd, unreported oral judgment delivered from the bench October 2, 2018 (Transcript of Proceedings), (2) Teine Energy Limited v Audax Investments Ltd, unreported oral judgment delivered from the bench March 21, 2019 (ABQB), and (3) Teine Energy Limited v Audax Investments Ltd, 2019 ABQB 334 (ABQB Ruling on Costs)

Teine and Audax entered into a farmout agreement on November 24, 2016. The agreement took the form of a proposal from Teine (as the farmor) to Audax as the proposed farmee, which proposal Audax accepted. The agreement contemplated that in return for drilling the commitment well (or wells), Audax would earn a 100% interest in Taine’s Saskatchewan Crown petroleum and natural gas lease, subject to a 17.5% gross overriding royalty in favour of Teine. The agreement incorporated by reference the 1997 Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen Farmout and Royalty Procedure.

The case turns on clauses 3 and 4 of the farmout agreement:

Director Liability and the Workers’ Compensation Scheme: The Divergence Between Policy Goals and Outcomes

By Jassmine Girgis

On May 14, 2019

In Corporate / Commercial, Torts

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: Director Liability and the Workers’ Compensation Scheme: The Divergence Between Policy Goals and Outcomes

Case Commented On: Hall v Stewart, 2019 ABCA 98

The workers’ compensation scheme and its effect on directors’ personal liability for corporate torts is an area of law that pursues the right policy goals but fails to achieve those goals in its implementation.

This post is about directors’ personal liability, the interplay between the Workers’ Compensation Act, RSA 2000, c W-15 (Act) and common law, and the policy issues that arise from this scheme. When the workers’ compensation scheme is superimposed on the common law system, it immunizes the corporation for corporate torts while leaving directors open to suit if they do not purchase special coverage. Their liability is then determined by common law principles.

In Hall v Stewart, the director, Stewart, did not purchase additional insurance, leading the Court of Appeal to conclude he could be held personally liable for the tort of the corporation under the two-step Anns/Kamloops test (from Kamloops (City of) v Nielsen, 1984 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1984] 2 SCR 2). This post will discuss two issues arising from this decision; first, the policy issue this scheme engenders, which should have been addressed under the second step of the Anns/Kamloops test, and second, the influence of Nielsen Estate v Epton, 2006 ABCA 382 (CanLII), affm’g 2006 ABQB 21 (CanLII), on this decision, which the Court of Appeal did not apply.

A Look Down the Road Taken by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Mills

By Lisa Silver

On May 8, 2019

In Constitutional, Criminal

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: A Look Down the Road Taken by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Mills

Case Commented On: R v Mills, 2019 SCC 22

Perhaps we, in the legal world, should not have been surprised by R v Mills, 2019 SCC 22, the most recent decision on privacy and the application of that concept in the s. 8 Charter regime. When it comes to Supreme Court decisions, we tend to dispense with the facts in favour of the principles, but Mills reminds us, facts do still matter in our highest court. Factually, pragmatically, and contextually, we understand that the investigative technique used in Mills simply needs to work. But in the name of principle, precedence, and visionary reach, Mills leaves us wondering. To throw even more dust into the eyes, overlaid on the decision is confusion. The seven-panel decision is fractured, leaving us to count on our fingers who agrees with who to manage some sort of majority decision. In the end, the numeric tally does not really matter. This is a new kind of Supreme Court where everyone agrees in the outcome but how they get there leads us onto the road “less travelled” or to update the metaphor, leads us through the web of internet connections less surfed. Or does it? Mills may be surprising but not unpredictable. It may also be just another decision exploring the reach of privacy in our everyday world and therefore part of the narrative, not the last word.

Standing to Seek Judicial Review of a Statutory Decision

Canada v Chhina: Supreme Court Makes Habeas Corpus Available to Immigration Detainees

Summary Judgment Not Available in a Farmout Case

Director Liability and the Workers’ Compensation Scheme: The Divergence Between Policy Goals and Outcomes

A Look Down the Road Taken by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Mills