ABLawg - - Page 171

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: When are Late Payment of Rent Charges in Residential Tenancies Unenforceable?

Case Commented On: 416566 Alberta Ltd. v Fothergill, 2017 ABPC 96 (CanLII)

This Provincial Court decision by Judge Jerry LeGrandeur, Associate Chief Judge, is of interest because he considers whether the fee a landlord charged for the late payment of rent was a valid pre-estimate of liquidated damages or an illegal penalty. If it is an estimate of damages, the tenant must pay the fee. If it is a penalty, it is unenforceable and the tenant does not have to pay the fee. Judge LeGrandeur’s decision was made under the Mobile Home Sites Tenancies Act, RSA 2000, c M-20, rather than the more often used Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1, but both statutes deal with late payment charges the same way: neither says anything at all about them. As a result, late payment fees can be included in leases and, if tenants agree to pay those fees by signing leases that include them, the tenants have to pay the late payment fees unless those fees are what the common law calls a “penalty.” Judge LeGrandeur’s decision, which is applicable to all types of residential tenancies, is welcome because there is a lack of direction in Alberta about how much can be charged for a late payment fee before it becomes an illegal penalty and unenforceable.

Alberta Amends the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation

By Amy Matychuk

On May 9, 2017

In Access to Justice, Landlord/Tenant, Property

By: Amy Matychuk and Jo-Ann Munn Gafuik

PDF Version: Alberta Amends the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation

Legislation Commented On: Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Alta Reg 98/2006

In the Fall of 2016 the Public Interest Law Clinic at the University of Calgary recommended changes to the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, which expired on April 30, 2017. The Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) is established under Part 5.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 as an alternative to the Provincial Court for dealing with landlord/tenant disputes under the Act. ABlawg has documented significant problems with the RTDRS and the Regulation in several posts written by Professor Jonnette Watson Hamilton here, here, here, and here. The scheduled expiry of the Regulation was an opportunity for the Alberta government to address these problems through amendments. However, the amendments enacted on April 24, 2017, while including some welcome changes, fall well short of addressing noted problems with the RTDRS.

Claims to Copyright Trumped by Expiration of Statutory Confidentiality Period

By Nigel Bankes

On May 8, 2017

In Intellectual Property, Natural Resources, Statutory Interpretation

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Claims to Copyright Trumped by Expiration of Statutory Confidentiality Period

Case Commented On: Geophysical Service Incorporated v EnCana Corporation, 2017 ABCA 125

In reserved reasons, a unanimous Court of Appeal has affirmed Justice Eidsvik’s decision at trial (2016 ABQB 230) in this contentious proceeding. This litigation has pitted the seismic company, GSI, against most, if not all, of the major exploration and production companies operating in Canada, as well as the federal regulators, the National Energy Board, and the Canada/Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. GSI claims that seismic data that it generated is protected by copyright for the usual term of the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-45 and that the various (and many) defendants have breached that protection by copying or facilitating the copying of protected materials once the confidentiality period protecting data filed with the regulators has expired.

Update: SCC Grants Appeal on ‘Prompt Return’ Mechanism of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction

By Rudiger Tscherning

On May 5, 2017

In Family, International Law

By: Rudiger Tscherning

PDF Version: Update: SCC Grants Appeal on ‘Prompt Return’ Mechanism of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction

Case Commented On: Office of the Children’s Lawyer v John Paul Balev and Catherine-Rose Bagott, Supreme Court of Canada, Leave to Appeal (37250)

Background

In an earlier post, I discussed the decision of Balev v Bagott, 2016 ONCA 680 (CanLII) and concluded that the ONCA was correct in its strict application of the ‘prompt return’ mechanism of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 25 October 1980. This meant that a ‘time-limited’ consent by one parent to relocate a child (on the facts, from Germany to Canada) could not amount to a unilateral change of the child’s ‘habitual residence’ during the consent period. As a result, the retention of a child after the expiration of a consent period constituted a wrongful removal or retention in breach of the Convention mechanism.

Update

On April 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) granted leave to appeal from the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) without reasons. It also granted a motion to admit fresh evidence. Significantly, the SCC ordered the appeal to be expedited. It further directed the parties to advise in writing of any changes that might affect the record, in particular with respect to the current circumstances of the children and the custody proceedings in the courts in Germany.

Granting a Vexatious Litigant’s Application for Leave to Appeal

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On May 4, 2017

In Family, Vexatious Litigants

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Granting a Vexatious Litigant’s Application for Leave to Appeal

Case Commented On: Belway v Lalande-Weber, 2017 ABCA 108 (CanLII)

In the case law on vexatious litigation, it is occasionally noted that a vexatious litigant order does not bar that litigant’s access to the courts. Instead, a vexatious litigant must apply for and obtain leave from the court before starting or continuing a proceeding. In other words, access to the courts is regulated, not prohibited. But the distinction between regulated access and no access depends to a large extent on what the test is for granting leave. This decision by Justice Sheilah Martin is a rare example of an application for leave being granted. As such, it is interesting to see how high or low it sets the bar for obtaining leave. And because the self-represented applicant in this case had vexatious litigant orders made against him under both the Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5 and the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, it is also interesting to note the contrast between the two regimes on this issue and how Justice Martin deals with the two tests by combining them into one.