Confidentiality versus Access to Information

PDF Version: Confidentiality versus Access to Information

Case commented on: Edmonton Police Service v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2012 ABQB 595

Introduction

In any society, a healthy balance is needed to protect personal and private information, whilst also allowing individuals and groups access to information that is in the public interest. In Alberta, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIPPA) sets out the rules that govern the collection, use or disclosure of personal information by public bodies. It also provides a method of requesting access to information which is not available through other means.

Continue reading →

“Judges of first instance are not mere scribes, collators of evidence, collage artists, or way stations on the road to justice”: The Problems with Copy-and-Paste Judgments

PDF version: “Judges of first instance are not mere scribes, collators of evidence, collage artists, or way stations on the road to justice”: The Problems with Copy-and-Paste Judgments

Cases commented on: University of Alberta v Chang, 2012 ABCA 324 (CanLII) and Cojocaru (Guardian  Ad Litem) v British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Center (Supreme Court of Canada Case number 34304)

The Alberta Court of Appeal decision in University of Alberta v Chang – from which the quote in the title of this post was taken (para 18) – was released November 13. The judgments appealed from consisted of cut-and-pasted excerpts taken verbatim from the written arguments of counsel for both parties and raised (in)sufficiency of reasons issues. The Court of Appeal decided the matters would have to be re-argued and re-heard in order to receive “a proper adjudication.” Coincidently, the Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal from a different copy-and-paste judgment on November 13, although it reserved its judgment and it will probably be months before a decision in Cojocaru (Guardian Ad Litem) v British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Center is handed down. Although both are copy-and-paste judgments, Cojocaru is quite different from Chang on its facts. The trial decision in Cojocaru was almost totally copied-and-pasted, but exclusively from the plaintiff’s written arguments. The Cojocaru case therefore raised issues of bias not raised by Chang. It will be interesting to see whether the approach adopted by the Supreme Court to decide Cojocaru will define the law for all copy-and-paste judgments. It could if the court decided the source of a judge’s reasons is irrelevant to determining their sufficiency.

Continue reading →

How the Canadian Forces defended the Sprague’s Pipit

PDF version: How the Canadian Forces defended the Sprague’s Pipit

Decisions considered:

Decision Statement issued November 30, 2012 re: Cenovus (formerly EnCana) Shallow Gas Infill Development Project proposed for the Suffield National Wildlife Area, online here.

Re: EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project – Review Panel Report under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, EUB Decision 2009-008, online here (the “2009 Panel Report”).

 In October 2008 a joint review panel constituted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, SC 1992, c 37 heard submissions and evidence from EnCana Corporation as the proponent of a proposed shallow gas well project (up to 1275 wells) to be located at the Canadian Forces Base Suffield National Wildlife Area in southeastern Alberta (the “Cenovus gas project”).  The panel also heard submissions and evidence from other interested parties such as Environment Canada, the Department of National Defence, and a coalition of environmental groups including the Alberta Wilderness Association.  Being a project located on federal lands (a national wildlife area designated under the Canada Wildlife Act, RSC 1985, c W-9), provincial departments such as Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development played a minimal role in the proceedings.  The joint review panel issued its assessment on January 27, 2009, essentially recommending to the federal Minister of Environment that the Cenovus gas project should not proceed until (1) critical habitat was designated for 5 listed species under the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 [SARA], and (2) the project was designed to ensure it would not be located within these designated critical habitat areas or alternatively was expressly permitted to do so under the Species at Risk Act (2009 Panel Report at 171).  The Minister of Environment responded on November 30, 2012 with a Decision Statement issued under section 54 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, SC 2012, c 19, s 52 (CEAA 2012) declaring that the Cenovus gas project was likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that are not justified in the circumstances.  Section 6 of CEAA 2012 prohibits Cenovus from proceeding with the Cenovus gas project and section 7 prohibits a federal authority from approving the project.  That is the news.  What follows is some commentary.

Continue reading →

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.