ABLawg

By: Kaye Booth

PDF Version: Finding Clarity: ABQB Upholds Decision by Worker’s Compensation Board’s Appeals Commission

Case Commented On: In-Line Contracting Partnership v Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission), 2018 ABQB 529.

In-Line Contracting Partnership v Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission) (ILCP) is a decision regarding the proper interpretation of “suitable” permanent modified work in the context of the policies of the Worker’s Compensation Board (“WCB”). On November 3, 2013, Tracy McKnight, who worked as a labourer on a road construction crew, suffered four broken ribs and a soft tissue injury when a co-worker fell on her (ILCP at para 1). Ms. McKnight took time off work, during which time she was compensated by the WCB. By March, the WCB found that Ms. McKnight was able to return to work, and her employer, In-Line Contracting Partnership (“In-Line”), offered her a job as a labourer, which Ms. McKnight rejected. A few months after, the WCB was alerted to the fact that Ms. McKnight had not fully recovered, and is now suffering from a permanent disability. This was communicated to In-Line, who offered Ms. McKnight modified work, which she once again rejected. The Appeals Commission for the WCB found that the job offer for permanent modified employment was not suitable according to the WCB’s guidelines (ILCP at para 3). ILCP is an appeal from the WCB’s Appeals Commission to the Court of Queen’s Bench.

Bribery by Dry Meat and the Legal Status of Jokes

By Drew Yewchuk

On August 2, 2018

In Uncategorized

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Bribery by Dry Meat and the Legal Status of Jokes

Case Commented On: Gullion v Gottfried, 2018 ABQB 531 (CanLII)

Gullion v Gottfried is the second reported decision addressing an application for judicial review alleging bribery under the Local Authorities Election Act, RSA 2000 c. L-21, and is also the second decision in which the allegations are unsuccessful (at para 24). The applicant, John Garry Gullion, alleged that the respondent, Everett Gottfried bribed voters in a local election contrary to section 116 of the Local Authorities Election Act. Gullion and Gottfried are second cousins (at para 11).

A Short Comment on the Public Interest Costs Exception

By Shaun Fluker

On July 25, 2018

In Costs

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: A Short Comment on the Public Interest Costs Exception

Case Commented On: Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform v Grande Prairie (City), 2018 ABCA 254 (CanLII)

The normal rule in Canadian litigation is that costs follow the event, and this is reflected in rules 10.29(1) and 14.88(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 which state the successful party is entitled to a partial indemnification of its legal costs. In exceptional cases the successful party may be awarded full indemnification (solicitor-client) or no costs at all. An award of costs lies in the discretion of the judge. The public interest exception to the normal costs rule is available to shield the losing party from a costs award, and I discussed this exception at some length in The Public Interest Exception to the Normal Costs Rule in Litigation. For a good overview on costs in public interest environmental litigation see also Costs and Access to Justice in Public Interest Environmental Litigation. This comment touches briefly on the decision by the Court of Appeal to deny an application for the public interest costs exception in Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform v Grande Prairie (City), 2018 ABCA 254 (CanLII).

New Report Provides a Framework for Thinking about Environmental Risk in the Regulatory Context

By Martin Olszynski

On July 24, 2018

In Environmental

By: Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: New Report Provides a Framework for Thinking about Environmental Risk in the Regulatory Context

Report Commented On: Responsible Risk: How putting a price on environmental risk makes disasters less likely

Anyone following the public debate with respect to carbon taxes in Canada will likely have heard of the Ecofiscal Commission – a policy shop operating at McGill University that for the past couple of years has been championing the use of carbon pricing as the most efficient way to tackle climate change. The Commission is not, however, a one-trick pony; it has also published reports on municipal water pricing, urban congestion, and biofuel subsidies, to name but a few.

In its most recent report, “Responsible Risk: How putting a price on environmental risk makes disasters less likely” (“Responsible Risk”), the Commission has set its sights on the environmental risks that inevitably accompany economic growth and development in Canada. In the report, the Commission makes the case for a more widespread use of “financial assurance” tools (e.g., bonds, insurance, industry funds) in order to more effectively and efficiently manage these risks.

As someone who researches and writes about environmental law and policy and who spent nearly half a dozen years working for a regulator, it is clear to me that this report should be mandatory reading for regulators, regulatory lawyers, and law students interested in environmental and natural resources law.

The Great Divide on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law

By Shaun Fluker

On July 23, 2018

In Administrative Law, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: The Great Divide on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law

Case Commented On: Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31 (CanLII)

In an unusual move earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada announced it would consider the nature and scope of judicial review in a trilogy of upcoming appeals in Bell Canada, Vavilov, and National Football League, and specifically invited the parties to make submissions on standard of review. This open invitation to revisit the standard of review framework established by Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 did not come as a surprise to followers of Canadian administrative law who have observed a divide form amongst the current members of the Supreme Court (only one of whom – Justice Abella – was sitting when Dunsmuir was argued) on how to select the standard of review. This division is fully apparent in Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31 and is the subject of this post. Elysa Darling and Drew Lafond have recently analyzed the substance of the merits in Canadian Human Rights Commission on ABlawg here, and my post will focus only on the standard of review analysis by the Court in the case.