ABLawg

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).

Trial Within A Reasonable Time: A Farewell to the Transitional Period

By Drew Yewchuk

On December 6, 2018

In Criminal, Human Rights

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Trial Within A Reasonable Time: A Farewell to the Transitional Period

Case Commented On: R v Scher, 2018 ABCA 365; R v Carter, 2018 ABQB 657; R v Tetreault, 2018 ABCA 397

The Supreme Court rendered judgment in R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 on July 8, 2016. This post is a review of three recent Alberta decisions addressing Jordan, and a farewell to the transitional provisions, as it has been almost thirty months since Jordan was released. The transitional provisions apply only to time between when charges were laid and when Jordan was released. Few cases left in the system (though some decisions are likely still pending) will involve relevant argument on the application of the transitional provisions. The post ends with a caution about where the law might be headed.