ABLawg - - Page 115

Case Commented On: National Energy Board, Letter Decision, 4 December 2018, Nipigon LNG Corporation (NLNG) Application pursuant to Section 12, Section 13, Section 59, Subsection 71(2), Subsection 71(3) and Part IV of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act) in respect of TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada) and the TransCanada Mainline pipeline system (the TransCanada Mainline).

Public utility statutes typically require a public utility to provide service on a non-discriminatory basis to persons within its exclusive franchise area. This is also the common law duty of a common carrier. But what if a regulated utility does not have a franchise area (e.g. TransCanada PipeLines, see for example the comments of the National Energy Board in its TCPL Restructuring Decision RH-003-2011, at 38); and what if the utility is not a common carrier (e.g. a federally regulated natural gas pipeline)?

Severing a joint tenancy in Alberta

By Nigel Bankes

On December 14, 2018

In Property

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Severing a joint tenancy in Alberta

Case Commented On: Dobransky v Roteliuk, 2018 ABQB 660 and Smilley v McMillan, 2018 ABQB 988.

Co-owners in Alberta may choose to hold an estate in land as joint tenants or as tenants in common: Law of Property Act, RSA 2000, c L-7, sections 4 and 5 (LPA). A joint tenancy carries with it the incident of survivorship – that is, the right of the surviving joint tenant to the entire estate. Despite the fact that there is a presumption in favour of a tenancy in common and that therefore co-owners must indicate expressly that they wish to own as joint tenants and not as tenants in common (LPA, section 8), there is general agreement (and this was certainly the position of courts of equity) that it should be easy to destroy or sever the joint tenancy thereby avoiding the incident of survivorship. This post sets out the law of severance and then comments on two recent decisions in each of which the plaintiff sought to get the Court’s assistance to complete a severance.

Rowbotham Order, Publication Ban, Sealing Order and In Camera Proceeding

By Myrna Tuttle

On December 13, 2018

In Access to Justice

By: Myrna El Fakhry Tuttle

PDF Version: Rowbotham Order, Publication Ban, Sealing Order and In Camera Proceeding

Case Commented On: R v Vader, 2018 ABCA 389

The Appellant, Her Majesty the Queen, appealed a Rowbotham order granted by Justice DRG Thomas on March 11, 2016, which directed the Alberta government to pay Mr. Vader’s (the Respondent’s) legal fees for work previously completed. The order also allowed a publication ban, a sealing order and an in camera hearing of the Rowbotham application.

From Recommendation to Legislation: Bill 28 Implements ALRI’s Recommendations about Property Division for Common-law Couples

By Laura Buckingham

On December 12, 2018

In Family

By: Laura Buckingham

PDF Version: From Recommendation to Legislation: Bill 28 Implements ALRI’s Recommendations about Property Division for Common-law Couples

Legislation Commented On: Bill 28, Family Statutes Amendment Act

On December 11, 2018, Bill 28, the Family Statutes Amendment Act received royal assent and became law. The new legislation implements nearly all of the recommendations the Alberta Law Reform Institute made in Property Division: Common-law Couples and Adult Interdependent Partners, Final Report 112.

Bill 28 accomplishes three things. It:

changes the law about property division for common-law couples by creating legislated rules;
remedies a gap in child support legislation that did not allow courts to order child support for disabled adult children of unmarried parents; and
repeals the Married Women’s Act, a statute dating from 1922 which is now obsolete.

Although all three are important, this post focuses on the new rules about property division for common-law couples.

Discrimination and Harassment Case Highlights the Difficulties in Choosing the Appropriate Forum

By Admin

On December 11, 2018

In Access to Justice, Human Rights

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: Discrimination and Harassment Case Highlights the Difficulties in Choosing the Appropriate Forum

Case Commented On: LL v Canadian Natural Resources Ltd, 2018 ABQB 879

LL sued her former employer Canadian Natural Resources Ltd (CNRL) for damages for its failure to protect her (as her employer) from ongoing sexual harassment and abuse. LL also claimed damages for constructive dismissal. CNRL applied to have the actions summarily dismissed or for an order to have portions of LL’s claims struck (at paras 1-3).

The Duty of a Regulated Pipeline to Provide Facilities

Severing a joint tenancy in Alberta

Rowbotham Order, Publication Ban, Sealing Order and In Camera Proceeding

From Recommendation to Legislation: Bill 28 Implements ALRI’s Recommendations about Property Division for Common-law Couples

Discrimination and Harassment Case Highlights the Difficulties in Choosing the Appropriate Forum