PDF version: The interaction of the offset well and default clauses of an oil and gas lease
Case commented on: 1301905 Alberta Ltd v Sword Energy Inc, 2013 ABQB 113.
In this case the Court granted summary judgement for breach of the offset well obligation in an oil and gas lease. Assessment of damages was referred to a referee.
PDF version: A Rather Quick Response to a Rather Typical Vexatious Litigant
Case commented on: Onischuk v Alberta, 2013 ABQB 89.
The prominent September 2012 decision of Court of Queen’s Bench Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, established a continuum of litigants, ranging from commonly encountered self-represented litigants, to infrequently encountered and almost always self-represented vexatious litigants, through to the highly unusual organized pseudolegal commercial argument (OPCA) litigant who is usually self-represented. Justice Rooke’s decision in Onischuk v Alberta concerns a litigant who appears to fit in the middle of that continuum, a rather typical vexatious litigant, although perhaps found to be so more quickly than has been the usual case. It is those two matters — typicality and velocity — that I focus on in this post.
PDF version: Supreme Court Renders Leave to Appeal Decisions in Several Alberta Cases
Cases considered: R v Mack, 2012 ABCA 42, leave to appeal granted, April 11, 2013 (SCC); Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1 v Joint Review Panel, 2012 ABCA 352, leave to appeal dismissed April 11, 2013 (SCC); Fitzpatrick v Alberta College of Physical Therapists, 2012 ABCA 207, leave to appeal dismissed April 11, 2013 (SCC)
On April 11, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada handed down leave to appeal decisions in three cases from Alberta.
Case commented on: Talisman Energy Inc v Esprit Exploration Ltd, 2013 ABQB 132
Talisman purchased Canadian 88’s interest in the East Crossfield Conditioning Plant in 2000. Did it also purchase the sulphur block and the liabilities associated with ownership of the block? In this case, and after undertaking an extensive and detailed contractual paper trail, Justice Sal LoVecchio concluded that the answer was no. The ‘elephant in the room’ was C88’s draft purchase and sale agreement (PSA) (which Talisman elected not to use) which, had it been executed, would have dictated the opposite result.
PDF version: The Manitoba Métis Case and the Honour of the Crown
Case commented on: Manitoba Métis Federation Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14
In its historic decision on the constitutional rights of the Manitoba Métis, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision rendered by the Chief Justice and Justice Karakatsanis (Rothstein and Moldaver JJ dissenting), concluded that section 31 of the Manitoba Act, 1870 (reprinted in RSC 1985, App. II, No. 11) expresses a constitutional obligation to the Métis people of Manitoba to provide Métis children with allotments of land. The majority held that the obligation did not impose a fiduciary or trust duty on the Crown but that it did engage “the honour of the Crown.” The majority held that the Crown failed to live up to the terms of that engagement and that the Métis were accordingly entitled to a declaration to that effect. The claim for declaratory relief in relation to the honour of the Crown was not barred by the law of limitations or the equitable doctrine of laches.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén
