ABLawg

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.

Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Clarifying the Implications of Different Protection Orders

By Jennifer Koshan

On September 11, 2017

In Landlord/Tenant, State Responses to Violence

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Clarifying the Implications of Different Protection Orders

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

This is the fourth 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 report Domestic Violence: Roles of Landlords and Property Managers (for earlier posts see here, here and here). The report identified several uncertainties that landlords and property managers have about protection orders: lack of knowledge of emergency protection orders and confusion about various types of no-contact orders (at 14), and lack of clarity about how and when tenants may apply for these types of orders (at 45). This post will address these issues, highlighting the differences between various types of no-contact orders provided for by statute and common law and the implications of these different types of orders for landlords, property managers and tenants. It will also include some recommendations for reform of the law around protection orders in Alberta. A more specific issue – when landlords or tenants may change locks in response to these orders – will be dealt with in a subsequent post by Professor Jonnette Watson Hamilton.

Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Landlords’ Power to Terminate Residential Tenancies for Acts of Domestic Violence (and an Argument for Publicly-Accessible RTDRS Reasons for Decisions)

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On September 8, 2017

In Landlord/Tenant, State Responses to Violence

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Landlords, Tenants, and Domestic Violence: Landlords’ Power to Terminate Residential Tenancies for Acts of Domestic Violence (and an Argument for Publicly-Accessible RTDRS Reasons for Decisions)

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

The report, Domestic Violence: Roles of Landlords and Property Managers (CPLEA report), a research project for the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta (CPLEA) under the lead of Professor Lois Gander, explores the role that landlords of private rental housing and their property managers can play in responding to domestic violence. Appendix F of the report identifies a number of legal issues that deter landlords and their agents from providing assistance because of the uncertainty in the law or the need for reform of the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA). This post addresses some of the termination issues identified by the landlords and property managers interviewed for the CPLEA report. Some landlords were uncertain about when they could terminate a tenancy for acts of domestic violence, and particularly when they could terminate it on only 24-hours notice (at 44). They also appeared to want more flexibility than is currently provided by the RTA. They wanted alternatives to termination of a tenancy, such as the ability to suspend a tenant’s tenancy, the ability to convert a tenancy that included a number of co-tenants into one with fewer tenants, and the ability to evict the abuser (at 44). None of those alternatives are currently available to Alberta landlords under the RTA, although some may be available to Alberta tenants and occupants under statutes such as the Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27 (PAFVA), which Professor Jennifer Koshan will explore in a future post. Their absence in the RTA contributes to the incidence of homelessness experienced too often by victims of domestic violence: see CPLEA’s The Hidden Homeless: Residential Tenancies Issues of Victims of Domestic Violence, Final Report, June 2014.

The Unfortunate Incident of the TWU Intervention Decisions

By Alice Woolley

On September 7, 2017

In Intervenors and Standing, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Alice Woolley

PDF Version: The Unfortunate Incident of the TWU Intervention Decisions

Cases Commented On: Trinity Western University, et al. v Law Society of Upper Canada, SCC file no 37209; Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University, et al, SCC file no 37318

On July 27, 2017 Justice Wagner denied intervenor status to 17 of 26 applicants in the Trinity Western University cases before the Supreme Court, including the applications of all LGBTQ+ identifying groups. Following an immediate and negative public reaction, particularly on social media, Chief Justice McLachlin used her scheduling power to add a second day to the TWU hearings, and then extended intervention status to the 17 applicants whom Justice Wagner originally rejected (Both orders can be found here). Two days later, Justice Wagner gave an interview to the Globe and Mail explaining that he had “no intention to exclude” members of the LGBTQ+ community, and that he and the Chief Justice had decided together how best to proceed after “he was made aware of concerns on social media”. The Supreme Court also issued a News Release explaining what had occurred.

Abandonment Expenses are for the Joint Account

By Nigel Bankes

On September 6, 2017

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Abandonment Expenses are for the Joint Account

Case Commented On: Spyglass Resources Corp v Bonavista Energy Corporation, 2017 ABQB 504 (CanLII)

In this decision Justice Jones rejected a series of technical arguments raised by the receiver of Spyglass (Ernst and Young) to resist payment of abandonment costs. The receiver had argued that Bonavista had abandoned co-owned assets for its own account rather than the joint account and that Bonavista was not able to set-off revenues attributable to Spyglass’s interest against Spyglass’s share of abandonment obligations.