ABLawg

By: Lorian Hardcastle

PDF Version: Squabble Over Alberta Dental Fees Highlights Broader Need to Rethink What is Publicly Insured

A 2016 government report revealed that dental procedures cost up to 44% more in Alberta than in neighbouring provinces. In addition, 62% of Albertans reported limiting dental visits due to cost concerns. The resulting fallout from this 2016 report led the Alberta Dental Association and College (ADAC) to respond with a new fee guide on August 17, 2017. When the ADAC stopped publishing its fee guide in 1997, Alberta became the only province without such a guide, which may have contributed to the current high cost of dental care. Although dentists are not bound by the fees listed in these guides, they can encourage price competition, improve transparency, and better inform patients. Alberta’s Minister of Health was “not satisfied” with the new guide, which proposed a 3% across-the-board reduction in dental fees. She stated that Albertans “deserve better” and has sent the ADAC back to the table to rethink the new fee guide.

In Defence of Lawyers Who Lose

By Alice Woolley

On August 29, 2017

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

By: Alice Woolley

PDF Version: In Defence of Lawyers Who Lose

Case Commented On: Engel v Edmonton Police Association, 2017 ABQB 495 (CanLII)

In September 2008 the Edmonton Police Association published an article on its website about cases brought to the Law Enforcement Review Board by Edmonton lawyer Tom Engel, his law firm, and the Edmonton Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association. The Law Enforcement Review Board is the independent quasi-judicial body charged with hearing appeals related to complaints from the public about police officers. The Police Association article claimed that Engel’s firm before the Board was “O for 28!”, that it had a “dismal record” and that in “more than a third of the cases” the firm “started something and failed to finish”: “After 28 incidents of cry wolf, when does someone call B.S.?” (at para 40). The article went on to ask whether this was “incompetence”, “extreme incompetence” or whether “something else was going on here” and queried, “when do these complaints and appeals become frivolous and vexatious?” (at para 41).

What Should Require Federal Impact Assessment? Proposed Triggers for a Credible Federal Impact Assessment Regime

By Sharon Mascher

On August 22, 2017

In Environmental

By: Sharon Mascher

PDF Version: What Should Require Federal Impact Assessment? Proposed Triggers for a Credible Federal Impact Assessment Regime

Document Commented On: Environmental and Regulatory Reviews Discussion Paper, Government of Canada, June 2017

On June 29, 2017, the Government of Canada released a Discussion Paper outlining a series of “system-wide changes” under consideration “to strengthen Canada’s environmental assessment and regulatory processes” (at 7). In earlier posts, I provide an overview of the Discussion Paper; Professor Bankes discusses the Discussion Paper’s response to the Report of the Expert Panel on the Modernization of the National Energy Board; and Professor Kwasniak considers how to fill the gaps in the Discussion Paper to regain public trust in federal assessment processes. Professor Kwasniak’s post focuses, in particular, on the core questions of what impacts should be assessed, to what end impacts should be assessed, and how assessments should figure in decision-making relating to project approval or disapproval. This post focuses on filling the gaps in the Discussion Paper relating to another core question—what should require federal impact assessment? The answer to this question is, of course, central to the Government of Canada’s commitment to deliver credible impact assessment and regulatory processes that both regain public trust and protect the environment.

The Creation of Community “Space” in Sentencing in R v Saretzky

By Lisa Silver

On August 18, 2017

In Criminal

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: The Creation of Community “Space” in Sentencing in R v Saretzky

Case Commented On: R v Saretzky, 2017 ABQB 496 (CanLII)

The Saretzky case will live in infamy as a disturbing crime that defies description and understanding. In this post, I do not intend to engage in a classic case analysis of the sentencing proceeding, which has been the primary subject of media attention and legal commentary. Certainly, the legal issues raised in this case are of concern as we struggle to make sense of a crime so devoid of humanity yet committed by a person who will now spend seventy-five years in custody, essentially to the end of his days. Is it a crushing sentence which fails to recognize the possibility, no matter how faint, of rehabilitation? Or is mere speculation about rehabilitation an inappropriate, unsafe, and frankly impossible standard to apply? Leaving aside the application of recognized principles of retribution and denunciation, are we comfortable with the reality of this decision, the warehousing of an individual who is a legitimate and continuing threat to society? Should the law be a “beacon of hope” or does “hope” go beyond legal expectations? Although we like to believe that hard cases make bad law, in fact, hard cases force us to look squarely at the worst scenario almost as a litmus indicator to test the strength and flexibility of applicable legal principles. In looking at Saretzky and Justice W. A. Tilleman’s reasons for sentencing, we can properly ask whether our sentencing principles and codified laws are up to the heavy task of assessing the worst case and the worst offender, the twin legal principles supporting the imposition of the maximum sentence.

R v Acera: Responding to the Call to Action in Jordan Via Detention Review Hearings

By Amy Matychuk

On August 16, 2017

In Constitutional, Criminal

By: Amy Matychuk

PDF Version: R v Acera: Responding to the Call to Action in Jordan Via Detention Review Hearings

Case Commented On: R v Acera, 2017 ABQB 470 (CanLII)

In R v Acera, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench reviewed the detention of 34 accused persons in remand awaiting trial. Under s 525 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, an accused detainee has the right to have their detention reviewed to determine whether they should be released pending trial when either 30 days (for a summary offence) or 90 days (for an indictable offence) have elapsed from the date they were taken into custody. The institution with custody of the accused must make a request on the accused’s behalf for a detention review hearing. At the hearing, the court shall assess the accused’s detention using the criteria in s 515(10) of the Code: whether detention is necessary to ensure the accused’s attendance in court, to protect the public, or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. However, s 525 also provides an opportunity for a superior court to become involved in case planning to ensure matters reach trial without unreasonable delay, and that additional purpose was the focus of Justice J. B. Veit’s decision in Acera.