ABLawg - - Page 153

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Apply … Deny … Repeat: A Victim of Crime Story

Case Commented On: Johnson v Alberta Criminal Injuries Review Board, 2017 ABCA 281 (CanLII)

This decision caught my attention because it reminded me of the movie Edge of Tomorrow wherein the main character lives the same day over and over fighting and dying in a repetitive time loop. Johnson v Alberta Criminal Injuries Review Board concerns an application by Johnson for a financial award under the Victims of Crime Act, RSA 2000 c V-3 as compensation for an injury he sustained as the victim of a stabbing. His initial 2010 application for compensation has been considered in numerous administrative adjudications under the Act and judicial scrutiny, and this most recent decision by the Court of Appeal sends it back for yet one more consideration. It is an interesting glimpse into a repetitive loop formed within an administrative regime, and the case also demonstrates why judicial oversight over the exercise of statutory power is an essential component of our legal system.

An Operator of Gas Processing Facilities Does Not Have a Possessory Lien Under the Possessory Liens Act

By Nigel Bankes

On September 20, 2017

In Oil & Gas, Property

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: An Operator of Gas Processing Facilities Does Not Have a Possessory Lien Under the Possessory Liens Act

Case Commented On: Cansearch Resources Ltd v Regent Resources Ltd, 2017 ABQB 535 (CanLII)

Cansearch and Regent jointly owned the Joffre Facility under the term of an agreement for the construction, ownership and operation (CO & O) of that facility (2008). Cansearch was appointed as operator. The CO & O agreement afforded Cansearch as operator an operator’s lien (cl 602(a)) in the following terms:

Effective from the Effective Date, Operator shall have a lien and charge, which is first and prior to any other lien, charge, mortgage or other security interest, with respect to the Function Unit Participations of each Owner in the Facility and such Owner’s share of Facility Products, to secure payment of such Owner’s proportionate share of the costs and expenses incurred by Operator for the Joint Account.

Cansearch never registered its Operator’s Lien pursuant to the Personal Property Security Act, RSA 2000, c P-7 (PPSA).

Is Alberta’s Mental Health Act Sufficiently Protecting Patients?

By Lorian Hardcastle

On September 18, 2017

In Constitutional, Health Law

By: Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: Is Alberta’s Mental Health Act Sufficiently Protecting Patients?

Case Commented On: JH v Alberta Health Services, 2017 ABQB 477 (CanLII)

At first blush, JH v Alberta Health Services does not seem to warrant much attention. It is an oral judgement relating to a procedural matter—whether a plaintiff can proceed with a moot claim. However, this case highlights several important issues in mental health law and its resolution could result in significant reforms to Alberta’s Mental Health Act, RSA 2000, c-13. The plaintiff, who was involuntarily detained and treated at Foothills Hospital for nine months, disputed his detention and challenged the constitutionality of several provisions of the Mental Health Act. He was diagnosed with a neuro-cognitive disorder and had also struggled with alcoholism and the physical injuries resulting from a car accident.

Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Liability for Damage to Residential Premises

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On September 13, 2017

In Landlord/Tenant, State Responses to Violence

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Liability for Damage to Residential Premises

Report Commented On: Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta, Domestic Violence: Roles of Landlords and Property Managers

This is the sixth and last in a series of blog posts on “Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence”, examining some of the legal uncertainties facing landlords and property managers who seek to respond to domestic violence on their premises, as identified in the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta (CPLEA) report on Domestic Violence: Roles of Landlords and Property Managers. That report recommends that “further consideration should be given to ways that the law impedes or assists landlords in accommodating the needs of their tenants who are experiencing domestic violence” (at 9). Even landlords who are motivated to help improve the circumstances of victims of domestic violence are worried about recovering the costs of repairing damage to their property by the perpetrators of domestic violence when the security deposit is not enough (CPLEA report at 8, 45). But, in an example of the further victimization of too many of the victims of domestic violence, the CPLEA June 2014 report entitled “The Hidden Homeless: Residential Tenancies Issues of Victims of Domestic Violence” noted that “it is often the victim that the landlord pursues for overdue rent and damages” (at 5, 34, 38) – damages caused by the perpetrator of the violence. This post will discuss the interaction between the provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA) governing security deposits and compensation for property damage and the Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27 (PAFVA), the Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5 and the Matrimonial Property Act, RSA 2000, c M-8. The more general implications of those and other sources of protection orders in this context are discussed by Professor Jennifer Koshan in “Clarifying the Implications of Different Protection Orders”. Some of the points in this post rely upon or repeat issues raised in my “Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Who is a Tenant?” and “Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Changing Locks and Barring Access” posts.

Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Changing Locks and Barring Access

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On September 12, 2017

In Landlord/Tenant, State Responses to Violence

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Changing Locks and Barring Access

Report Commented On: Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta, Domestic Violence: Roles of Landlords and Property Managers

This is the fifth in a series of blog posts examining some of the legal uncertainties facing landlords and property managers who seek to respond to domestic violence on their premises, as identified in the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta (CPLEA) report on Domestic Violence: Roles of Landlords and Property Managers. For earlier posts see here, here, here and here. Among other problems, the CPLEA report identified the confusion landlords and tenants have about the implications of various protection orders for requests from a victim of domestic violence to have the locks changed (at 45). In addition, both landlords and tenants would like more power to change locks and bar access to perpetrators (at 45). This post will look at the issue of changing locks and barring access from the perspective of the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA). It relies on my earlier discussion in “Who is a ‘Tenant’ under the Residential Tenancies Act?” because the answer under the RTA to who has a right to keys and access to the residential premises is whoever has the status of “landlord” or “tenant”. However, the answer based on the RTA is affected by the various protection orders that victims of domestic violence may obtain. These orders are touched on in this post but were explained in more detail by Professor Jennifer Koshan in “Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Clarifying the Implications of Different Protection Orders”. This post focuses on the poor fit between the RTA and the statutes authorizing protection orders.