ABLawg

By: Alice Woolley

PDF Version: Is a Bad Lawyer a Bad Person?

In 1976 Charles Fried famously asked, “Can a good lawyer be a good person?” (“The Lawyer as Friend: The Moral Foundations of the Lawyer-Client Relation” (1976) 85 Yale LJ 1060 at 1060).

Law and morality are distinct. As a consequence, lawyers sometimes represent bad people, and sometimes help people do bad things. There is thus a legitimate question about whether being a lawyer is consistent with an ethical life. Nonetheless, Fried answered his question “yes”. Because of the law’s legitimacy and justification, a lawyer who assists people to pursue their goals and interests through the law can be – is – a good person. She does a job worth doing.

The AESO Line Loss Marathon Inches Towards the Finish Line

By Nigel Bankes

On January 8, 2018

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The AESO Line Loss Marathon Inches Towards the Finish Line

Decision Commented On: Milner Power Inc. & ATCO Power Ltd. Complaints Regarding the ISO Transmission Loss Factor Rule and Loss Factor Methodology, Phase 2 Module C, AUC Decision 790-D06-2017, December 18, 2017

In a pre-Christmas post on the power purchase arrangements (PPAs) saga I hinted that, at least from the perspective of the energy regulatory lawyers in the city, the PPA saga must be the gift that keeps on giving; but this epithet must be even more so for the line loss dispute—for this truly is a marathon. And while the latest decision of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) gets us a little closer to the finish line, I fully expect that we shall see further applications to the AUC for review and variance and perhaps several more trips to the Court of Appeal. Indeed I believe that there is still one outstanding application (Capital Power Corporation v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2015 ABCA 197 (CanLII) and see also at paras 150-152 of this decision) for permission to appeal an earlier decision which application was adjourned sine die pending the outcome of the AUC’s decision on the merits (i.e. this decision).

R v EJB: Another Unconstitutional Mandatory Minimum Sentence

By Daphne Wang

On January 5, 2018

In Constitutional, Criminal

By: Daphne Wang

PDF Version: R v EJB: Another Unconstitutional Mandatory Minimum Sentence

Case Commented On: R v EJB, 2017 ABQB 726 (CanLII)

In a previous post, Professor Erin Sheley commented that R v Nur, 2015 SCC 15 (CanLII), may have started a “widespread dismantling of the Criminal Code’s policy of gun-related mandatory minimums.” Since Nur, constitutional challenges to mandatory minimums have reached beyond gun-related crimes. The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13 (CanLII), held the one-year mandatory minimum for drug trafficking under s 5(3)(a)(i)(D) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996 c 19, to be unconstitutional (at para 56). By doing so, the SCC left other offences with mandatory minimums vulnerable to constitutional challenge under s 12 of the Charter. Following Lloyd, the recent Court of Queen’s Bench decision R v EJB found the one-year mandatory minimum for sexual exploitation under s 153(1.1)(a) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, to be of no force or effect (at para 90).

Approaching the Standard of Review for Standard Form Contracts Remains Unclear

By Nicholas Konstantinov

On January 4, 2018

In Contracts, Labour/Employment

By: Nicholas Konstantinov

PDF Version: Approaching the Standard of Review for Standard Form Contracts Remains Unclear

Case Commented On: EnCana Oil & Gas Partnership v Ardco Services Ltd, 2017 ABCA 401 (CanLII)

This case involves a dispute between EnCana and its payroll supplier, Ardco, over an indemnity provision in their Master Service and Supply Agreement (“Master Agreement”). In 2006, EnCana enlisted the services of Ardco to manage its contract operators. Ardco delivered these services only to EnCana; it paid and provided benefits and insurance to the contractors but was reimbursed by the larger corporation. The hiring and firing, supervision, and onsite management, including the supply of equipment, was EnCana’s responsibility.

Yet Another Development in the Saga of Random Drug and Alcohol Testing at Suncor

By Linda McKay-Panos

On January 3, 2018

In Constitutional, Labour/Employment

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: Yet Another Development in the Saga of Random Drug and Alcohol Testing at Suncor

Case Commented On: Unifor, Local 707A v Suncor Energy Inc, 2017 ABQB 752 (CanLII)

Recently, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (per Justice R. Paul Belzil) granted Unifor, Local 707A (the Union) an interim injunction prohibiting Suncor Energy Inc (Suncor) from implementing its random drug and alcohol testing policy pending either a successful application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada or, failing that, the parties holding a fresh arbitration hearing in early 2018.