ABLawg - - Page 282

Matter commented on: Flood Relief Legal Information Sessions

In the days following the July flooding of Calgary and other areas of Southern Alberta, the various U of C law student Facebook pages lit up with offers of help for fellow law students. My classmates offered up their spare bedrooms and just like countless other Albertans, they offered up their time and energy. Some helped out their neighbours while others spent days removing mud from Calgary parks so that summer festivals could take place. And perhaps not surprisingly my classmates also harnessed their newly acquired legal skills, which came coupled with a vibrant enthusiasm.

Enforcing Alberta’s Restrictions on Consumer Arbitration

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On August 6, 2013

In Arbitration

PDF version: Enforcing Alberta’s Restrictions on Consumer Arbitration

Case commented on: Young v National Money Mart Company, 2013 ABCA 264 (CanLII).

This decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal is a welcome addition to the body of consumer arbitration case law. It is the first Court of Appeal decision to give effect to section 16 of the Fair Trading Act, RSA 2000, c F-2, and only the second reported decision considering that provision despite the fact it has been around since 1998. The decision also offers a glimpse into the basis on which Service Alberta decides to approve or disapprove of consumer arbitration agreements under section 16.

Problem solved? Assessing the Supreme Court’s Latest Statement on the Law Governing Conflicts of Interest

By Alice Woolley

On August 2, 2013

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

PDF version: Problem solved? Assessing the Supreme Court’s Latest Statement on the Law Governing Conflicts of Interest

Case commented on: Canadian National Railway Co v McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39.

On July 5 2013 the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated judgment in Canadian National Railway v McKercher LLP. The case invited the Court to reconsider its “bright line” rule for current client conflicts, as previously set out by the Court in R v Neil, 2002 SCC 70. The bright line rule provides that, absent client consent, a “lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client – even if the two mandates are unrelated” (Neil at para 29, emphasis in original).

Kallisto #2. Competing Uses of Geological Space: Resolving Conflicts Between Oil Production and Natural Gas Storage Interests

By Nigel Bankes

On August 1, 2013

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF version: Kallisto #2. Competing Uses of Geological Space: Resolving Conflicts Between Oil Production and Natural Gas Storage Interests

Decision Commented On: Kallisto Energy Corp Application for a Well Licence, Crossfield East Field, July 23, 2013, 2013 ABAER 013

In a sequel to the ERCB’s Decision, Kallisto Energy Corp Application for a Well Licence Crossfield East Field, 2012 AERCB 005, February 24, 2012 (hereafter Kallisto # 1), the subject of an earlier ABlawg post, the new Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has handed down its decision on a proposal by Kallisto Energy to drill another oil well on lands immediately adjacent to CrossAlta’s natural gas storage facility north of Airdrie.

Shell Jackpine JRP Report: Would the Real “Adaptive Management” Please Stand Up?

By Martin Olszynski

On July 31, 2013

In Energy, Environmental

PDF version: Shell Jackpine JRP Report: Would the Real “Adaptive Management” Please Stand Up?

Decision commented on: Shell Canada Energy, Jackpine Mine Expansion Project, Application to Amend Approval 9756, 2013 ABAER 011/Decision 2013-011 (CEAA, 2012).

On July 9, 2013, the Joint Review Panel (JRP) for Shell’s Jackpine Mine Expansion Project released its long-awaited report (the Jackpine Report). Shell had applied to expand its existing Jackpine Mine, located roughly 70 km north of Fort McMurray, to increase bitumen production by 15,900 m³/day and bring total production to 47,700 m³/day. As further discussed below, the JRP concluded that the project, though likely to result in significant adverse environmental effects on several fronts, is nevertheless in the public interest.

Law Students Provide Legal Information to Flood Victims

Enforcing Alberta’s Restrictions on Consumer Arbitration

Problem solved? Assessing the Supreme Court’s Latest Statement on the Law Governing Conflicts of Interest

Kallisto #2. Competing Uses of Geological Space: Resolving Conflicts Between Oil Production and Natural Gas Storage Interests

Shell Jackpine JRP Report: Would the Real “Adaptive Management” Please Stand Up?