ABLawg - - Page 276

Case commented on: Chikonyora v Chikonyora, 2013 ABCA 320

Had the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench been allowed to stand in this case, the division of matrimonial property could have become much more difficult for many divorcing spouses in Alberta. They might have had to sue in every jurisdiction in which they held property, whether that was in a province other than Alberta or a country other than Canada. The lower court decision had held that spouses did not have to disclose information about their assets held outside Alberta because the Alberta superior courts had no jurisdiction over those assets. Fortunately an appeal was taken to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which applied the relevant provisions of the Matrimonial Property Act, RSA 2000 c M-8 (MPA), and required disclosure of assets held outside Alberta. In addition to the “potential crisis averted” aspect of this case, it is also an example of how frustrating access to justice can be for self-represented litigants.

The Vriend Case 15 Years Later

By Jennifer Koshan

On October 18, 2013

In Constitutional, Human Rights

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: The Vriend Case 15 Years Later

Case and Legislation Commented On: Vriend v Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493; Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5

This year marks the 15^th anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Vriend v Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493 [Vriend] in which the Court unanimously held that the lack of protection for discrimination based on sexual orientation in Alberta’s human rights legislation was an unconstitutional violation of Charter equality rights (for a previous post on the Vriend decision by Linda McKay Panos, see here). To celebrate the anniversary Delwin Vriend visited Alberta this week, and his visit included participation in a public forum organized by the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership, as well as a visit to my human rights class at the law school.

Beyond the Four Corners of the Contract: The Parol Evidence Rule, Implied Terms and the Duty of Good Faith

By Jassmine Girgis

On October 14, 2013

In Contracts

PDF Version: Beyond the Four Corners of the Contract: The Parol Evidence Rule, Implied Terms and the Duty of Good Faith

Case commented on: Bhasin v Hrynew, 2013 ABCA 98, leave to appeal granted, 2013 CanLII 53400 (SCC)

This appeal is ultimately about contractual interpretation. It is about the types of obligations, over and above the express terms, that can be brought into the contract and the difficulties created as a result of the assertion that the contract goes beyond its express terms. Importantly, it considers the duty of good faith in the context of commercial relations and, as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada, which has granted leave to appeal, whether such duty could be excluded by an entire agreement clause.

Separation of Powers and the Government’s Response to the Judgment in Pembina Institute v Alberta (Environment and Sustainable Resources Development), 2013 ABQB 567

By Nigel Bankes

On October 11, 2013

In Environmental

PDF Version: Separation of Powers and the Government’s Response to the Judgment in Pembina Institute v Alberta (Environment and Sustainable Resources Development), 2013 ABQB 567

Responses commented on: (1) “Still Alberta’s prerogative to say who speaks at oilsands reviews: Alison Redford” as reported by Canadian Press, Calgary Herald, October 4, 2013, and (2) “Environment minister defends officials in oil sands case”, as reported by James Wood, Calgary Herald, October 9, 2013

My colleague Shaun Fluker posted a comment on the judgment in Pembina Institute v Alberta (Environment and Sustainable Resources Development), 2013 ABQB 567 last week here. In that case Justice Marceau ruled that a Director within the Department of Environment and Sustainable Resources Development acted unlawfully when he decided that the Pembina Institute and the Fort McMurray Environmental Association were not entitled to file a statement of concern with respect to the MacKay River oil sands project. Justice Marceau ruled that the Director in making his decision took into account irrelevant and improper considerations – namely that the applicants were no longer as cooperative as they had been in their dealings with government in relation to oil sands developments and the environmental impacts of those developments.

Prosecutorial Discretion and Solicitor-Client Costs

By Alice Woolley

On October 9, 2013

In Criminal, Ethics and the Legal Profession

PDF Version: Prosecutorial Discretion and Solicitor-Client Costs

Case commented on: R v Leonard, 2013 ABQB 531

In R v Leonard, 2013 ABQB 531, Justice Thomas awarded solicitor-client costs against the Crown on the basis that the Crown continued with the prosecution of Leonard after the point where it “should have realized it had no realistic basis to continue” (at para 97). He did so after rejecting an application by the Crown that he should recuse himself. The Crown had argued for recusal because Justice Thomas had tried the underlying criminal case and, in the course of doing so, had reserved jurisdiction to award costs, had suggested that the Crown’s conduct warranted review by the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta, and had emphasized the weakness of the Crown’s case.

Disclosure of Foreign Assets in Matrimonial Property Actions

The Vriend Case 15 Years Later

Beyond the Four Corners of the Contract: The Parol Evidence Rule, Implied Terms and the Duty of Good Faith

Separation of Powers and the Government’s Response to the Judgment in Pembina Institute v Alberta (Environment and Sustainable Resources Development), 2013 ABQB 567

Prosecutorial Discretion and Solicitor-Client Costs