ABLawg

Should Homelessness be an Analogous Ground? Clarifying the Multi-Variable Approach to Section 15 of the Charter

On December 19, 2013

By: Joshua Sealy-Harrington

PDF Version: Should Homelessness be an Analogous Ground? Clarifying the Multi-Variable Approach to Section 15 of the Charter

Case Commented On: Tanudjaja v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ONSC 5410

This post discusses a decision from the Ontario Superior Court which rejected “homelessness” as an analogous ground under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I divide the analysis into two sections: (1) a discussion of the analytical flaws in the court’s approach to analogous grounds, and (2) an application of a multi-variable approach to the potential ground of homelessness to demonstrate its apparent viability as an analogous ground. This case should be of concern to ABlawg readers interested in section 15 jurisprudence as well as those advocating for the interests of the homeless.

Read More

The Difference Between a Duplex and a Semi-Detached House

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On December 18, 2013

In Property

PDF Version: The Difference Between a Duplex and a Semi-Detached House

Case commented on: Deagle v 1678452 Alberta Ltd., 2013 ABQB 708

Does permission to construct a semi-detached dwelling allow the building of a secondary suite? That was the essence of the controversy in Deagle v 1678452 Alberta Ltd., which involved the interpretation of a 1911 restrictive covenant registered against the title to homes in the Glenora community in Edmonton. In deciding the matter, Justice Donald Lee reviewed a large number of cases concerning restrictive covenants that, in one way or another, limited construction to one dwelling house per lot. While each of those many cases ultimately depended on the exact wording in each restrictive covenant, the distinction that Justice Lee made between a “duplex” and a “semi-detached” house goes beyond the particularities of each case in the absence of evidence as to what the parties to any one restrictive covenant intended by their use of those terms at the time the covenant was entered into.

What are the Rules Governing Consents to Assignments of Pipeline Easements across Indian Reserves?

By Nigel Bankes

On December 16, 2013

In Aboriginal, Oil & Gas

PDF Version: What are the Rules Governing Consents to Assignments of Pipeline Easements across Indian Reserves?

Case commented on: Coldwater Indian Band v Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 2013 FC 1138

This case raises the question of the leverage available to a First Nation to claim hold-out rents where a pipeline crosses reserve lands and the current owner/operator of the pipeline has failed to obtain required consents to an assignment of the pipeline easement.

Psychological Stress and Workers’ Compensation in Alberta

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 13, 2013

In Constitutional, Labour/Employment

PDF Version: Psychological Stress and Workers’ Compensation in Alberta

Cases commented on: Martin v Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2012 ABCA 248, appeal heard December 10, 2013 (SCC); Ashraf v SNC Lavalin ATP Inc., 2013 ABQB 688

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Canada heard argument in an Alberta case involving the interplay between federal and provincial legislation providing for the compensation of workers injured in workplace activities. Workers’ Compensation Commissions from British Columbia, Quebec and Nova Scotia intervened in the case. The Court, which reserved judgment after its hearing, offers the following description of the case on its website:

Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Project: The Mysterious Case of the Missing Justification

By Martin Olszynski

On December 12, 2013

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental

PDF Version: Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Project: The Mysterious Case of the Missing Justification

Document commented on: Decision Statement Issued under Section 54 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 re: Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Project (2013 ABAER 011/Decision 2013-011)

Last Friday (December 6, 2013), the federal Minister of the Environment, Leona Aglukkaq, released the long-awaited decision statement for Shell’s Jackpine Mine Expansion project. As I wrote here, the joint review panel concluded – for the first time in the oil sands context – that the project was likely to result in numerous significant adverse environmental effects. This conclusion triggered the application of subsection 52(2) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19 (CEAA, 2012), pursuant to which the Governor in Council (GiC) must determine whether the project is nevertheless “justified in the circumstances.” This the GiC did. Or at least, we are told that it did.