ABLawg - - Page 139

On February 5, 2018, the federal government tabled Bill C-68, An Act to Amend the Fisheries Act. This Bill is the product of roughly two years of study and public consultation by both the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) – study and consultation that was promised by the then-opposition Liberals during the last federal election campaign. That promise was itself a response to the previous Conservative government’s changes to the Fisheries Act, RSC 1985, c F-14, as part of its overhaul of the federal environmental regime back in 2012. With respect to the Fisheries Act specifically, the previous government took direct aim at the habitat protection provisions of that legislation (section 35). While some of the changes were positive, such as broadening protection to include not just “works and undertakings” but also “activities”, most of them were widely panned (see e.g. here, here, here, here, here, and here). Whereas the original prohibition protected all fish and fish habitat, post-2012 only those fish (and their habitat) that were part of, or supported, a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery are protected. The level of protection has also been reduced: whereas the previous version of section 35 protected against “harmful alterations, disruption, or destruction” of fish habitat, the 2012 version only protects against the “permanent alteration or destruction” of fish habitat.

Foreclosing Mortgagees’ Liability for Tenants’ Security Deposits

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On April 13, 2018

In Administrative Law, Landlord/Tenant

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Foreclosing Mortgagees’ Liability for Tenants’ Security Deposits

Case Commented On: CIBC Mortgages Inc v Bello, 2018 ABQB 176 (CanLII)

This appeal from an order of a Tenancy Dispute Officer of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) is worth noting for several reasons. First, it appears that the question of whether a mortgagee becomes a “landlord” under the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2003, c R-17.1 (RTA) upon foreclosing on leased residential premises had not been addressed before. This is an important question for tenants looking to recover their security deposits and for foreclosing mortgagees who have not received those security deposits from their mortgagor. Second, the standard of review to be applied on an appeal from a Tenancy Dispute Officer’s order has been controversial within the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. Some decisions have held that correctness is the standard, whereas others, including this one, hold that the standard is one of reasonableness. Third, the court’s clear statement and elaboration of the purpose of the RTA–to address the power imbalance between landlords and tenants–should be helpful to tenants in future cases. Fourth, the decision is a good example of statutory interpretation and eminently suitable for a first year law school course on legislation. Finally, insofar as Tenancy Dispute Officers are not required to give reasons as part of their written orders, the occasional appeals of those orders (which must be accompanied by a transcript of the Tenancy Dispute Officer’s oral reasons) offer rare glimpses into the legitimacy of the dispute resolution services provided by the RTDRS.

Interjurisdictional Enforcement of Protection Orders and the Possibility of Conflicts: The Need for Reform in Alberta

By Jennifer Koshan

On April 11, 2018

In Family, State Responses to Violence

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Interjurisdictional Enforcement of Protection Orders and the Possibility of Conflicts: The Need for Reform in Alberta

Case Commented On: DH v TH, 2018 ABQB 147 (CanLII)

Most provinces and territories in Canada now have legislation providing for emergency protection orders in cases of family violence. What we do not have in Alberta is a clear mechanism that allows for the recognition and enforcement of a protection order granted in another jurisdiction, nor a mechanism for dealing with conflicting orders.

In a recent Alberta case, DH v TH, 2018 ABQB 147 (CanLII), Justice Lee faced a situation where a woman had obtained an ex parte protection order against her husband in British Columbia under the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25. At the time, the wife was living in BC and her husband was travelling back and forth between Edmonton and BC for work. After the order was granted, the husband moved to Edmonton to live with his sister. He was eventually served with the BC order in Alberta but missed the date for the hearing into the extension of that order, which resulted in a three-year BC protection order being granted against him. In the meantime, the wife received a transfer of employment to Edmonton and moved there to live with her parents. The husband apparently learned about the extension of the BC order when he went to an Edmonton daycare “where he believed the child of the marriage was” (at para 6). Later that day, he was served with an emergency protection order (EPO) obtained ex parte by his wife under Alberta’s Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27 (PAFVA).

Leaving A Paper Trail: A Comment on Bill C-75

By Lisa Silver

On April 5, 2018

In Criminal

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: Leaving A Paper Trail: A Comment on Bill C-75

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Receiving the newest Bill tabled in the House on proposed changes to the criminal justice system brings to mind the image of opening gifts at a birthday party. Each gift is scrupulously wrapped in an array of cheerful paper with shiny ribbons. As each bundle is displayed, there is a jostling amongst the party goers – each eager to see the gift unwrapped to reveal the prize inside. The image goes only so far when it comes to the government’s proposed amendments to the Criminal Code tabled last week under the auspices of Bill C-75. Underneath the wrapping, over 300 pages of paper, is no prize but a maze of amendments and changes – a patchwork of pieces – some of which significantly change the criminal justice system. Although some of these amendments are welcome, others signal a significant shift in our criminal justice system. Change can be good and can improve our concept of justice. However, even the smallest change must be calibrated toward a goal we all share: maintaining the fine balance between protection of the public and protection of the individual within that system who is faced with a potential loss of liberty. We must not sacrifice one for the other. Change must be viewed not as a piece of a maze but as a part of a whole through long-term strategic vision. Unfortunately, this omnibus Bill in many respects fails to be visionary. Rather, short-term administrative efficiency seems to be the prize under the mountain of paper.

Suncor’s Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy Continues to be the Subject of Litigation

By Linda McKay-Panos

On April 4, 2018

In Constitutional

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: Suncor’s Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy Continues to be the Subject of Litigation

Case Commented On: Unifor, Local 707A v Suncor Energy Inc., 2018 ABCA 75 (CanLII)

There have been several previous ABlawg posts on this litigation related to drug testing in the workplace. See here, here, here, and here.

Suncor Energy Inc. appealed an interim injunction granted by the ABQB (Unifor, Local 707A v Suncor Energy Inc., 2017 ABQB 752 (CanLII)), which prohibited it from implementing random drug and alcohol testing of members of Unifor Local 707A (Unifor) in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo until a new arbitration is ordered, unless the Supreme Court of Canada determines that a new arbitration is unnecessary (application for leave to appeal Suncor Energy Inc v Unifor Local 707A, 2017 ABCA 313 (CanLII) (the arbitration matter) to the SCC was initiated in November 2017). In the instant case, a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal (per Justices Ronald Berger and Patricia Rowbotham) upheld the interim injunction.

Asking the Right Questions about Amendments to the Fisheries Act

Foreclosing Mortgagees’ Liability for Tenants’ Security Deposits

Interjurisdictional Enforcement of Protection Orders and the Possibility of Conflicts: The Need for Reform in Alberta

Leaving A Paper Trail: A Comment on Bill C-75

Suncor’s Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy Continues to be the Subject of Litigation