ABLawg - - Page 273

Decision commented on: Inquiry Committee concerning the Hon. Lori Douglas, Reasons For Resignation of the Inquiry Committee (November 20, 2013)

In a stunning development, the Inquiry Committee charged with investigating the conduct of the Hon. Lori Douglas, chaired by Chief Justice Catherine Fraser of the Alberta Court of Appeal, has resigned en masse. Associate Chief Justice Douglas was investigated by the Canadian Judicial Council in relation both to her conduct prior to her judicial appointment and to her disclosures during the appointment process. The Inquiry Committee was additionally charged with considering her conduct during the Canadian Judicial Council’s investigation, and in particular allegations that she interfered with the investigation. (For a previous discussion of this case on ABlawg see here).

Supreme Court Denies Leave to Appeal in Marital Rape Sentencing Case

By Jennifer Koshan

On November 26, 2013

In Criminal, Supreme Court of Canada

PDF Version: Supreme Court Denies Leave to Appeal in Marital Rape Sentencing Case

Case commented on: R v QJK, 2013 ABCA 244; leave to appeal to SCC dismissed November 21, 2013

On November 21, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada (McLachlin CJ, Cromwell J and Wagner J) dismissed a leave to appeal application by the defence for a sentence handed down by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R v QJK. The Supreme Court’s summary of the case frames the issue on which leave to appeal was sought as “Whether the Honourable Court of Appeal erred in not giving deference to the Learned Sentencing Judge as he did give proper weight to the gravity of the offense and properly considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence and imposed a fit sentence.” In a very brief Memorandum of Decision delivered from the bench, the Court of Appeal had increased the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge from 6 months to 20 months imprisonment. The Court of Appeal noted that the circumstances of the case – forced sexual intercourse by the accused on his spouse – amounted to a major sexual assault necessitating a 3 year starting point (2013 ABCA 244 at para 1). According to the Court of Appeal, the sentencing judge “overemphasized the mitigating circumstances and underappreciated the gravity of the offence as well as the need that the sentence reflect an appropriate degree of denunciation and deterrence” (at para 1).

A Case for Reform: The Law of Fraudulent Preferences and Conveyances

By Maria Lavelle

On November 22, 2013

In Creditors’ Remedies, Property

PDF Version: A Case for Reform: The Law of Fraudulent Preferences and Conveyances

Case Commented On: 1007374 Alberta Ltd v Ruggieri, 2013 ABQB 420

The case of 1007374 Alberta Ltd v Ruggieri, 2013 ABQB 420, is not significant in and of itself, but rather because it highlights some (but not all) of the shortcomings of the current state of the law regarding fraudulent preferences and conveyances. This is an area of law that has been described as “notoriously antiquated and long overdue for reform” (see Tamara M. Buckwold’s article: “Reforming the Law of Fraudulent Conveyances and Fraudulent Preferences” (2012) 52 Canadian Business Law Journal 333, at 333).

Blind Justice? Accommodating Offenders with Disabilities

By Jennifer Koshan

On November 18, 2013

In Constitutional, Criminal, Human Rights

PDF Version: Blind Justice? Accommodating Offenders with Disabilities

Case commented on: R v Myette, 2013 ABCA 371

To what degree should courts accommodate the circumstances of persons with disabilities whose crimes attract jail sentences? The Alberta Court of Appeal recently divided on this issue in R v Myette, 2013 ABCA 371. At the original sentencing hearing, Judge Heather Lamoureux found that a jail sentence would be “unduly harsh” in light of Myette’s visual impairment, and ordered a suspended sentence of 18 months for sexual assault and common assault (2013 ABPC 89 at para 16). A majority of the Court of Appeal (Justices Constance Hunt and Jack Watson) found her approach to be erroneous, and substituted a sentence of 90 days in jail, to be served intermittently on weekends. Justice Peter Martin, writing in dissent, would have dismissed the Crown’s appeal. This post will review the various decisions in this case with a focus on whether sentencing decisions are the proper forum for accommodating the circumstances of offenders with disabilities.

Eighty Percent Of Success Is Showing Up: Or “How A Pro Se Farmer Won A Default Against The United States In His Suit To Invalidate The Permit For Half Of Keystone Xl (& Why It Probably Won’t Last)”

By James Coleman

On November 14, 2013

In Oil & Gas

PDF Version: Eighty Percent Of Success Is Showing Up: Or “How A Pro Se Farmer Won A Default Against The United States In His Suit To Invalidate The Permit For Half Of Keystone Xl (& Why It Probably Won’t Last)”

Case commented on: Bishop v Bostick, 9:13-cv-00082, (E.D. Tex, Nov. 6, 2013).

On April 25, Michael Bishop, a farmer acting pro se, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to revoke TransCanada’s permit to construct the southern half of the Keystone XL project. This part of the project, known as the “Gulf Coast Project” or “Phase III”, travels from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. Bishop sued the Army Corps of Engineers and its Commanding General, Thomas Bostick, because the Army Corps issued the permit to TransCanada. The complaint that Bishop filed asked the court to order the Army Corps to revoke Keystone’s permit. Bishop then served this complaint on the Army Corps of Engineers, its officers, and the Attorney General of the United States.

Douglas Inquiry Committee Resigns

Supreme Court Denies Leave to Appeal in Marital Rape Sentencing Case

A Case for Reform: The Law of Fraudulent Preferences and Conveyances

Blind Justice? Accommodating Offenders with Disabilities

Eighty Percent Of Success Is Showing Up: Or “How A Pro Se Farmer Won A Default Against The United States In His Suit To Invalidate The Permit For Half Of Keystone Xl (& Why It Probably Won’t Last)”