By: Geoff S. Costeloe
PDF Version: Orders for Genetic Testing: Is the Genie Out of the Bottle?
Case commented on: Adacsi v Amin, 2013 ABCA 315
A recent decision at the Alberta Court of Appeal raises a major issue in personal injury jurisprudence. Adacsi v Amin, 2013 ABCA 315, is a precedent setting ruling that allows for the forced collection of a blood test for the purpose of determining the existence of a possible predisposition to disease.
By: Jason Wai and Linda McKay-Panos
PDF Version: Professional Bodies, Internationally Educated Graduates and the Alberta Human Rights Act
Case commented on: Mihaly v The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta, 2014 AHRC 1
A recent Human Rights Tribunal decision about the actions of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA, now called the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta or APEGA) has sparked a fair bit of critical commentary (see here and here). Mr. Mihaly filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission on August 5, 2008, alleging that he was discriminated against when he was denied registration as a Professional Engineer (PEng). He argued that the requirements imposed upon him by APEGGA for registration are contrary to the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 (AHRA).
By: Martin Olszynski
PDF Version: To Be (Justified) or Not To Be: That is (Still) the Question
Document commented on: Decision Statement Issued under Section 54 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c19, for Taseko’s proposed New Prosperity Mine Project
A couple of weeks ago, the federal Minister of the Environment, Leona Aglukkaq, released another highly anticipated “decision statement” pursuant to section 54 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), this time regarding Taseko’s New Prosperity Mine project. Most readers will know that this was Taseko’s second attempt to secure federal approval for its proposed mine and that the federal review panel that conducted the second environmental assessment (EA) concluded that, like the original Prosperity project, it too was likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects (SAEEs) (for more on the panel’s report, see my previous post here). As with Shell’s Jackpine Oil Sands Mine expansion project and Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline project, this meant that New Prosperity could only proceed if the Governor in Council (GiC) (which is to say, Cabinet) concluded that these SAEEs were “justified in the circumstances” (section 53). Unlike Jackpine (and probably Northern Gateway), however, the GiC has apparently concluded that New Prosperity’s SAEEs are not justified. I use the term “apparently” here because, as in Jackpine, there is no explanation or rationale contained in the decision statement as to how or why the GiC reached this result.
By: Nigel Bankes
PDF Version: Bill C-22 and the Proposed Regime for the Development of Transboundary Oil and Gas Pools and Fields
Proposed legislation commented on: Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada’s offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts (Energy Safety and Security Act), Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014
Bill C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations, (Northwest Territories Act), Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014. And see the coordination provision in s 118 of Bill C-22 coordinating the entry into force of the two statutes.
By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton
PDF Version: What is the Legal Effect of an Unenforceable Agreement in an Unjust Enrichment Claim?
Case commented on: Lemoine v Griffith, 2014 ABCA 46
The recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Lemoine v Griffith is interesting for what it tells us, in the context of a claim of unjust enrichment, about the legal effects of a prenuptial agreement that was both found and admitted to be unenforceable because of undue influence and a lack of independent legal advice. According to the majority, Justices Ronald Berger and Clifton O’Brien, once the trial judge found the agreement unenforceable for those reasons — and the appellant abandoned his challenge to that finding — the prenuptial agreement was not a factor in either supplying a juristic reason for any enrichment or evidence of the parties’ intentions. However, despite the fact that the unenforceability of the prenuptial agreement was not an issue, in his dissent Justice Frans Slatter would have overturned the finding of undue influence, holding (at para 103) that the “trial judgment cannot stand.” While that is not the only point of disagreement between the majority and the dissent, it is the point that I will focus on in this comment.
