University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Fundamental Breach and Repudiatory Breach of Contract

By

On November 7, 2013

In Contracts

PDF Version: Fundamental Breach and Repudiatory Breach of Contract

Case commented on: John Barlot Architect Ltd. v 413481 Alberta Ltd., 2013 ABQB 388

The doctrine of fundamental breach has caused much confusion, in part because of its relationship to the doctrine of repudiatory breach. The two are entirely different doctrines, but as I tell my students, it doesn’t help that sometimes, the doctrines are merged and the terms used interchangeably.

In effect, the two doctrines are quite separate and the finding of one type of breach leads to a significantly different outcome than a finding of the other. The problem occurs when, as in this decision, the two doctrines are combined and there is no clear indication of the differences between the two. That does not necessarily render the judgment incorrect but it does make for inaccurate references and confusing terminology.

This post will focus on the doctrines of fundamental and repudiatory breach. A shortened version of the facts will be provided, as not all of them are necessary for the purpose of this post.

Read More

Order in the Court! The Use of Electronic Devices in Alberta Courts and Freedom of Expression

By

On November 6, 2013

In Access to Justice, Constitutional

PDF Version: Order in the Court! The Use of Electronic Devices in Alberta Courts and Freedom of Expression

Policies commented on:  Policy on the Use of Electronic Devices in Courtrooms, Alberta Court of Appeal, October 28, 2013; Electronic and Wireless Devices Policy, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, January 2012

Last week the Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) issued a Notice to the Profession attaching its Policy on the Use of Electronic Devices in Courtrooms. The Policy applies to all ABCA courtrooms, and prohibits use of electronic devices in those courtrooms by members of the public. For those persons, “Electronic devices … must be turned off and kept out of sight” (section 3). Only lawyers and “accredited media members” are permitted to use such devices in ABCA courtrooms (section 4), subject to certain restrictions. Anyone who uses an electronic device contrary to the Policy may face sanctions including being required to leave the courtroom or declared in civil contempt of court (section 12). The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (ABQB) has a similar Electronic and Wireless Devices Policy, requiring that all electronic devices be turned off in its courtrooms, but exempting counsel and some members of the media from that rule. The Provincial Court of Alberta (ABPC) has adopted the ABQB Policy. This post will describe the details of these policies, and will examine whether the policies are consistent with freedom of expression as protected by section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Read More

Client Rights and Lawyers’ Files

By

On November 5, 2013

In Ethics and the Legal Profession, Property

PDF Version: Client Rights and Lawyers’ Files

Case commented on: Royal Bank of Canada v Kaddoura, 2013 ABQB 630

In a recent decision, Master Prowse held that a client who sues a lawyer may obtain production of documents from the files of other clients of the lawyer.  The production of specific documents may be resisted on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.  Master Prowse did not, however, impose any requirement that those clients be given notice of the production of documents from their files, did not consider whether the documents contain confidential (as opposed to privileged) information, whether the documents are properly considered to be in the “control” of the lawyer, or assessment of the risk of prejudice to the legal interests of those clients from disclosure.  In short, the judgment appeared to give no weight or consideration to those clients. This result is unfortunate, and inconsistent with the usual respect afforded to the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications.

Read More

Supreme Court of Canada May Finally Clear up Issue of “Employment” in Human Rights Cases

By

On November 4, 2013

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada May Finally Clear up Issue of “Employment” in Human Rights Cases

Case commented on: Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP v British Columbia (Human Rights Tribunal) 2012 BCCA 313; leave to appeal granted, Michael McCormick v Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP, 2013 CanLII 11313 (SCC).

I have written a number of posts (see for example here and here) about the narrowing interpretation given to “employment” in discrimination cases under the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000 c A-25.5. Since the Act protects individuals from discrimination in five areas (employment, notices, tenancy, services and accommodation, and trade unions), on several grounds (e.g., age, gender, race, colour, place of origin, ancestry, source of income, religious beliefs, family status, marital status, physical disability, mental disability, or sexual orientation), if the discrimination does not occur in an area defined as “employment” (or any of the other four areas) then the complainant cannot obtain a remedy under the Act. Consequently, one way that respondents seek to counter human rights complaints is by establishing that they do not fit within the current definition of “employment”, and hence the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. As noted previously, the narrowing interpretation of “employment” seems to counter the overarching educational and remedial purpose of human rights law, and the “large and liberal interpretation” that is supposed to be given to provisions in the Act.

Read More

“Wide and Deep”: Implications of the SCC’s Castonguay decision on the Interpretation of Environmental Protection Legislation, Fulfilling Reporting Requirements, Reporting Authorities’ Obligations and the Precautionary Principle

By

On November 1, 2013

In Environmental

PDF Version: “Wide and Deep”: Implications of the SCC’s Castonguay decision on the Interpretation of Environmental Protection Legislation, Fulfilling Reporting Requirements, Reporting Authorities’ Obligations and the Precautionary Principle

Case commented on: Castonguay Blasting Ltd. v Ontario (Environment), 2013 SCC 52

On October 17, 2013, in Castonguay Blasting Ltd. v Ontario (Environment), 2013 SCC 52 [Castonguay] the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal of Castonguay Blasting Ltd. upholding a conviction under section 15(1) of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, RSO 1990, c E 19 (EPA), for failing to report the discharge of a contaminant.  As Justice Abella, writing for a unanimous Court, states at the outset of her judgment, the Court was asked to engage in an interpretative exercise to determine whether, on these facts, the reporting requirement was triggered.  At the end of the day, the Supreme Court of Canada considered this a relatively straight forward exercise, in that “there is clarity both of legislative purpose and language:  the Ministry of the Environment must be notified when there has been a discharge of a contaminant out of the normal course of events without waiting for proof that the natural environment has, in fact been impaired.  In other words:  when in doubt, report.” (at para 2).

Read More

Page 282 of 420

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén