PDF Version: Cancellation of a Nova Scotia Exploration License for Failure to Tender a Work Deposit
Case commented on: Shin Fan F & P Inc v Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, 2013 NSSC 341
In this straightforward decision Justice Gregory Warner of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court declined to grant judicial review of a decision of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to cancel Shin Han’s exploration license (EL) for failure to tender a work deposit.
PDF Version: New Prosperity Mine Panel Report: A “Liberal and Generous,” “Complex,” and Rigorous Interpretation of CEAA 2012
Report commented on: Report of the Federal Review Panel – New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine Project (October 31, 2013)
Last Thursday (October 31, 2013), the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) released the highly anticipated federal panel report for Taseko’s proposed New Prosperity Mine project (New Prosperity Report). As many readers will know, this marks the second time that this particular proponent has been through the federal environmental assessment (EA) process. A first attempt with respect to what was then referred to simply as the Prosperity Mine project was approved by British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Office in 2009 but was thwarted in 2010 by several findings of significant adverse environmental effect (SAEE) by an initial federal panel, including the total destruction of Fish Lake, also known as Teztan Biny by the Tsilhqot’in First Nation. (As an aside, the discrepancy between the federal and provincial outcomes was noted at the time and in the ensuing debate over the fate of the since-repealed Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, SC 1992, c-37). Undeterred (and seemingly prompted by the federal government), Taseko quickly revised its project with a view first and foremost towards avoiding the outright destruction of Fish Lake and in 2011 re-submitted it to the federal EA process. Alas for the company, two deficiency statements and one 24-day public hearing later, it appears to be no closer to realizing its project than it was three years ago, the second federal panel having now concluded that the New Prosperity Mine project is also likely to result in SAEE on several fronts.
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.
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.
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.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén
