ABLawg - - Page 146

“Not One Cookie Cutter Citizen”: A Review of ABlawg Posts on Some of Justice Sheilah Martin’s Decisions

On December 11, 2017

By: Jennifer Koshan, Jonnette Watson Hamilton, Fenner Stewart, and Lisa Silver

PDF Version: “Not One Cookie Cutter Citizen”: A Review of ABlawg Posts on Some of Justice Sheilah Martin’s Decisions

Matter Commented On: Justice Sheilah Martin’s Nomination to the Supreme Court of Canada

The Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary is thrilled that one of our own – Justice Sheilah Martin – has been nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada. Many of us watched her question and answer session with Parliamentarians on 5 December 2017, and were pleased to see her fierce intelligence, compassion and humour shine through. In one of the most quoted lines from her remarks, she said that she hoped her legacy would be that she was a deep thinker, a good listener, and had really great hair. The title of this post, “Not One Cookie Cutter Citizen”, is also taken from Justice Martin’s remarks during the hearing, when she was making a point about the importance of thinking about the differential impact of the law on people with different identities and needs. A review of ABlawg posts on decisions written by Justice Martin during her tenure as a judge in Alberta reveals her concern for the impact of the law on individuals and the public. This post will highlight four of Justice Martin’s decisions that we have blogged on over the years, in areas ranging from constitutional and health law, to civil litigation and vexatious litigants, to bankruptcy law and oil and gas assets, to homicide and sexual assault law. We also provide a list of other posts on her judgments for those who are interested in further reading on Justice Martin’s legacy as a judge in Alberta.

The False Security of Commingled Trust Accounts

By Nigel Bankes

On December 8, 2017

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The False Security of Commingled Trust Accounts

Case Commented On: Alberta Treasury Branches v Exall Energy Corporation, 2017 ABQB 602 (CanLII)

Working interest owners in the western sedimentary basin have long sought to have the best of both worlds: the convenience of allowing an operator to commingle joint account monies from multiple properties in a single general account, while offering (through the provisions of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen (CAPL) operating procedures) the contractual assurance to non-operators that their funds were impressed with a trust while in that commingled account. The weakness of such an assurance is that its underlying premise is that the operator will always have a balance in that commingled general account equal to or greater than the amounts represented by the “monies of the joint operator”, whether those monies are monies contributed by a joint operator to fund joint operations or whether they represent monies received by the operator on account of the sale of a joint operator’s share of production. If that premise turns out not to be the case then a joint operator’s proprietary claim evaporates. The premise of course is most likely to be false when the operator is in financial difficulty – the precise point in time when a joint operator would like to have access to a proprietary remedy.

Landlords, Tenants and Domestic Violence: Introduction to a New ABlawg Ebook

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 6, 2017

In Landlord/Tenant, State Responses to Violence

By: Jennifer Koshan and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Editors’ Note: ABlawg is pleased to publish this new ebook, Landlords, Tenants and Domestic Violence: An ebook collection of ABlawg posts concerning residential tenancies and victims of domestic violence, on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women in Canada.

This ebook is a compilation of ABlawg posts from the last two years concerning residential tenancies and domestic violence.

PPA Terminations and the AESO Tariff

By Nigel Bankes

On November 30, 2017

In Utility Regulation

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: PPA Terminations and the AESO Tariff

Matter Commented On: Application from the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) to the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) requesting legal determinations by the AUC under Section 8 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act with respect to system access service for generation from the Keephills facilities, November 24, 2017

The complicated issues surrounding the termination of Power Purchase Arrangements (PPAs) are about to get a lot more complicated. Justice Horner’s decision mandating the Balancing Pool to complete its assessment and verification of ENMAX’s notice of termination (delivered May 5, 2016) of its Keephills PPA (see ENMAX PPA Management Inc v Balancing Pool, 2017 ABQB 718 (CanLII) and my post on that decision here) has triggered an application by the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) to the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) to have the AUC decide certain questions of law so as to assist the AESO in ensuring the continuation of an appropriate legal framework within which the Keephills facilities will continue to supply power to the Alberta Interconnected System (AIES).

The Cost of Cohabitation Agreements: Considering Property Division Laws for Unmarried Cohabitants

By Kyle Gardiner

On November 28, 2017

In Family, Property

By: Kyle Gardiner

PDF Version: The Cost of Cohabitation Agreements: Considering Property Division Laws for Unmarried Cohabitants

Report Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Property Division: Living Together Before Marriage, Report for Discussion No. 31

On September 29, 2017, the Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) released Property Division: Common Law Couples and Adult Interdependent Partners, Report for Discussion No. 30, addressing Alberta’s lack of statutory law dealing with property division for unmarried cohabitants. That report recommended that property division rules should apply to adult interdependent partners as defined in the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act, SA 2002, c A-4.5 (AIRA) (i.e. “common-law partners”), and that those rules should be based on the Matrimonial Property Act, RSA 2000, c M-8 (MPA) — the statute that governs property division upon marriage breakdown in Alberta. This recommendation necessitated a further question answered by ALRI’s Report for Discussion 31: how should laws of property division deal with couples who first cohabit and later marry?