The immorality (and morality) of morality-based judging

PDF version: The immorality (and morality) of morality-based judging

Case commented on: R v Zentner, 2012 ABCA 332

Introduction

 On November 22, 2012, in its decision in R v Zentner, 2012 ABCA 332, the Alberta Court of Appeal reversed the sentencing decision of Provincial Court Judge G.K. Krinke, in which Judge Krinke imposed a conditional discharge on a funeral director convicted of fraud.  The Court did so on the grounds that Judge Krinke failed to follow applicable (and binding) precedent and did not comply with the requirements of the Criminal Code.  The Court held that the “legal foundation of the sentence imposed was either non-existent, or was installed upside down” (para 60).

Continue reading →

Nominations Open for 7th Annual Canadian Law Blog Awards

Nominations are now being accepted for the 7th annual Canadian Law Blog Awards known as the CLawBies (the Canadian Law Blog Awards).  The CLawBies recognize “the most thoughtful, useful, and timely law or legal industry-related blogs out there”.  We encourage our readers to take the time to nominate their favourite blogs.  There are three ways to nominate a blog:

  1. Tweet your nomination via Twitter with the hashtag: #clawbies2012.  If you visit the CLawBies website you will see a number of tweeted nominations.
  2. Email your favourite blog, including a couple sample posts or any other notable highlights, to Steve Matthews at steve@stemlegal.com.  The judges prefer a public nomination, but still welcome participation from folks who don’t blog or tweet.
  3. Write a blog post nominating up to three other Canadian law blogs you currently read, with a brief explanation of why you think those blogs were award-worthy in 2012.

The deadline for nominations is Thursday, December 27th, and the winners of the 2012 CLawBies will be announced on New Year’s Eve.

Many thanks to the readers who have already nominated the ABlawg.

Duty to consult application is premature – what’s the big deal?

PDF version: Duty to consult application is premature – what’s the big deal?

Case and decision commented on: Metis Nation of Alberta Region 1 v Joint Review Panel, 2012 ABCA 352 and decision of the Joint Review Panel

 In this decision Justice Slatter denied the application of the Metis Nation and of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) for leave to appeal the decision of the Joint Review Panel (JRP) constituted to deal with Shell’s Jackpine Mine Expansion Project application.  In its decision the JRP concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to assess whether or not the Crown had fulfilled its duty to consult with respect to the Jackpine Mine Project.  In the alternative, the JRP concluded that any application to assess whether or not the Crown had fulfilled its constitutional obligation was premature.  The JRP is established by federal\provincial executive agreement and has the responsibility of discharging obligations under both the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19 and the responsibilities of the provincial Energy Resources Conservation Board under a number of statues including the Oil Sands Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c O-7 – all with respect to the Jackpine Mine expansion project.

Continue reading →

Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy Implicates Safety, Privacy, Human Rights and Civil Liberties

PDF version: Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy Implicates Safety, Privacy, Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Case commented on: Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 707 v Suncor Energy Inc. 2012 ABCA 307 (“CA”)

The issue of random drug and alcohol testing in the workplace has now reached national importance.  The Supreme Court of Canada recently granted leave to appeal in such a case.  See:  Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30, v Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd., 2011 NBCA, leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) granted: 2012 CanLII 14844 (SCC), (“Irving”).  It is likely the SCC will hear this case in December 2012 (Jeff Gray, “Supreme Court to rule on random alcohol testing” The Globe and Mail 08 May 2012).  Alberta has a keen interest in the outcome of this case as it has its own pending cases.

Continue reading →

Managed property, the reserve fund, ultra vires doctrine and other issues in interpreting the Condominium Property Act

PDF version: Managed property, the reserve fund, ultra vires doctrine and other issues in interpreting the Condominium Property Act

Case commented on: Maciejko v Condominium Plan No. 9821495, 2012 ABQB 607

Maciejko v Condominium Plan No. 9821495 (“Shores“) is posed to be an extremely significant case for the Condominium Property Act, RSA 2000, c C-22 the (“Act“).  The case deals with questions that go to the root of the practice area.  How should the powers of a condominium corporation be interpreted?  What is a “unit”?  What is the role of the condominium plan?  The answers to such fundamental questions have a significant impact not only for Shores itself, but also for hundreds of other condominiums in Alberta similarly set-up.  The questions also have significant importance to the entire condominium practice area and, at a more practical level, the use of the Act as a tool for the development and empowerment of condominium communities.

Continue reading →