ABLawg

Case Commented On: Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) 2018 FCA 153

Last Thursday, the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision in Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General). Those following Canada’s contentious pipeline debate will know that this was the primary legal challenge to Kinder Morgan’s certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN or certificate) for its Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX) (for a series of related ABlawg posts, see here). The Federal Court of Appeal quashed the CPCN on two grounds: first, the Court held that the National Energy Board’s (NEB) decision to exclude the increased marine traffic associated with the project from the environmental assessment (EA) conducted pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 SC 2012, c 19, s 52 (CEAA, 2012) was unreasonable; and second, Canada did not adequately discharge its constitutionally-rooted duty to consult and accommodate affected Indigenous peoples. This post focuses primarily on the first ground, although as will be seen the two are related. As further discussed below, the Federal Court of Appeal’s analysis with respect to marine traffic appears to be on solid footing (the Good). More problematic is the Court’s approach to the reviewability of EAs generally (i.e. the ability to challenge such reports in court) (the Bad). Most problematic, however, has been the decision’s reception and distortion by various groups and individuals to make various claims that the decision simply does not substantiate (the Ugly).

Alberta’s Family Violence Death Review Committee: Recent Reports, Recommendations and Reflections

By Jennifer Koshan

On August 20, 2018

In Family, Human Rights

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Alberta’s Family Violence Death Review Committee: Recent Reports, Recommendations and Reflections

Reports Commented On: Family Violence Death Review Committee, Annual Reports and Case Reviews, available here.

Alberta’s Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27 (PAFVA) was passed in 1999 and has as its primary focus the provision of protection orders for persons experiencing family violence. The PAFVA was amended in 2013 to empower the government to establish a Family Violence Death Review Committee (FVDRC) with the mandate to review fatal incidents of family violence and to advise and make recommendations to the government on preventing and reducing family violence (PAFVA, s 16). The FVDRC was established in 2013, and its most recent annual report, released in May 2017, provides statistics on the 132 family violence deaths in Alberta between January 2008 and December 2015 (see Family Violence Death Review Committee, 2015/2016 Annual Report at 12). In a series of more in-depth case reviews released between May 2017 and May 2018, the FVDRC makes several recommendations related to legislation, policy and legal processes that I review in this post. For a good resource on domestic violence death review committees in other jurisdictions in Canada and internationally, see the website of the Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative.

Mixed Results for Corrections Officer Terminated for Dishonesty

By Linda McKay-Panos

On August 17, 2018

In Labour/Employment

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: Mixed Results for Corrections Officer Terminated for Dishonesty

Case Commented On: Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v Alberta, 2018 ABQB 524 (AUPE)

Justice GS Dunlop of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently heard an application for judicial review of a three-day suspension and termination of a long-standing employee of the Province of Alberta. For just about 30 years, Todd Ross (Ross) was a Correctional Peace Officer (CPO) employed by the Province. He was a member of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) and was also a union representative (AUPE at para 1). In April 2013, a new Edmonton Remand Centre opened (AUPE at para 2). Ross had been terminated on June 28, 2013 on three grounds:

His communication with management about the new Edmonton Remand Centre in April 2013; Ross wrote and sent two emails to the Executive Director and the Assistant Executive Director of the new Edmonton Remand Centre, which the arbitrator had described Ross as ‘insolent, insubordinate and untruthful’; Ross had also erred when he addressed his comments to the Deputy Minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister;
His actions when he was relieved with pay on April 26, 2013; and
His actions while he was on leave with pay after April 26, 2013; the employer alleged that Ross had induced other CPOs to engage in an illegal strike between April 26 and May 3, 2013—however, the arbitrator held that this allegation was not proven (AUPE at paras 10 and 11).

In a decision on this matter released April 14, 2015, the arbitrator held that the termination was an excessive response to Ross’s misconduct in the two emails; Ross’s dismissal was set aside and replaced with a six-month suspension starting from June 28, 2013 (AUPE at para 11).

The Purposes and Limits to a Client’s Right to A Review of Lawyer’s Accounts

By Clayton Swan

On August 16, 2018

In Access to Justice, Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Clayton Swan

PDF Version: The Purposes and Limits to a Client’s Right to A Review of Lawyer’s Accounts

Case Commented On: Eryn B Logie Family Law v West, 2017 ABQB 339 (Logie QB); West v Logie Family Law, 2018 ABCA 255 (Logie CA).

Recently, the Alberta Court of Appeal addressed an important issue in lawyer-client relations: the right and ability of a client to submit their lawyer’s bill for review. The technical term for this process is ‘taxation.’ The chain of cases that I will discuss begins with a highly contested family law file and a retainer that lasted 3 years. The lawyer-client relationship ended with the client having paid 98.5% of his bill. The client applied to a Master, and received, an order allowing an extension on the time limit for reviewing a lawyer’s bill without being required to provide notice to his lawyer or having to justify his request. The lawyer appealed the order and was ultimately successful in the Court of Appeal. This blog post will focus on the reasons of the Court of Appeal and provide some commentary on what this judgment could mean for both clients and lawyers in the future.

Peaks of Grassi Development in Canmore: Procedural Fairness and Municipal Bylaws?

By Shaun Fluker

On August 15, 2018

In Administrative Law, Municipal Law

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Peaks of Grassi Development in Canmore: Procedural Fairness and Municipal Bylaws?

Case Commented On: Gruman v Canmore (Town), 2018 ABQB 507 (CanLII)

Municipal governance in the Town of Canmore is undoubtedly a challenging proposition. Canmore is a four-season tourism and recreation destination, which attracts a large range of visitors and inhabitants with diverse interests. The town is also situated at the mouth of the Bow Valley; it must be a constant struggle to achieve development goals while not spoiling the environmental riches which make Canmore the attractive destination that it is. This diverse range of interests and concerns results in relatively frequent municipal disputes in the town. The dispute in question here concerns a proposed new residential development in the Peaks of Grassi – a subdivision located on the west side of Canmore along the lower slopes of Ha Ling Peak. In 2015 Canmore council amended a bylaw to allow for residential development in what is currently an urban environmental reserve located in the Peaks of Grassi subdivision. The bylaw amendment was challenged in a judicial review application heard in March 2017, and in July 2018 Justice Gates allowed the application and quashed the bylaw amendment on procedural fairness grounds (see here for media coverage on this decision).

Federal Court of Appeal Quashes Trans Mountain Pipeline Approval: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Case Commented On: Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) 2018 FCA 153

Alberta’s Family Violence Death Review Committee: Recent Reports, Recommendations and Reflections

Mixed Results for Corrections Officer Terminated for Dishonesty

The Purposes and Limits to a Client’s Right to A Review of Lawyer’s Accounts

Peaks of Grassi Development in Canmore: Procedural Fairness and Municipal Bylaws?