ABLawg

Case Commented on: Imperial Oil Ltd v Calgary (City), 2013 ABQB 393.

Many people are concerned about what appears to be the lack of public access to government-held information. Ironically, in this case, the City of Calgary (a municipal government) is quite concerned about its lack of access to the Remediation Agreement reached between Alberta Environment and Imperial Oil Limited, which pertains to environmental remediation of lands contaminated by petroleum, hydrocarbon vapours and lead in Lynnview Ridge (a residential subdivision in Calgary).

Court of Appeal Reaffirms Gay, Non-bio Dad’s Status as Legal Parent

By Melissa Luhtanen

On August 8, 2013

In Family

PDF version: Court of Appeal Reaffirms Gay, Non-bio Dad’s Status as Legal Parent

Case commented on: DWH v DJR, 2013 ABCA 240.

This case began to wind its way through the courts when Mr. H. and Mr. R. split up. Mr. H. and Mr. R. had been living together as partners and they had arranged to have a baby through a friend, Ms. D, using Mr. R.’s sperm. In exchange they agreed to give Ms. D. sperm for her to have a second baby that she and her partner would raise. Ms. D. gave birth to baby S. and for a short period of time Ms. D. lived with the two men and baby S. Baby S. lived with Mr. H. and Mr. R. for three years until, in June 2006, the couple split up. S. called Mr. H. and Mr. R. “Papa” and “Daddy” respectively. After they split up S. lived with Mr. R.

Law Students Provide Legal Information to Flood Victims

By Eleanor Carlson

On August 7, 2013

In Access to Justice

PDF version: Law Students Provide Legal Information to Flood Victims

Matter commented on: Flood Relief Legal Information Sessions

In the days following the July flooding of Calgary and other areas of Southern Alberta, the various U of C law student Facebook pages lit up with offers of help for fellow law students. My classmates offered up their spare bedrooms and just like countless other Albertans, they offered up their time and energy. Some helped out their neighbours while others spent days removing mud from Calgary parks so that summer festivals could take place. And perhaps not surprisingly my classmates also harnessed their newly acquired legal skills, which came coupled with a vibrant enthusiasm.

Enforcing Alberta’s Restrictions on Consumer Arbitration

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On August 6, 2013

In Arbitration

PDF version: Enforcing Alberta’s Restrictions on Consumer Arbitration

Case commented on: Young v National Money Mart Company, 2013 ABCA 264 (CanLII).

This decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal is a welcome addition to the body of consumer arbitration case law. It is the first Court of Appeal decision to give effect to section 16 of the Fair Trading Act, RSA 2000, c F-2, and only the second reported decision considering that provision despite the fact it has been around since 1998. The decision also offers a glimpse into the basis on which Service Alberta decides to approve or disapprove of consumer arbitration agreements under section 16.

Problem solved? Assessing the Supreme Court’s Latest Statement on the Law Governing Conflicts of Interest

By Alice Woolley

On August 2, 2013

In Ethics and the Legal Profession

PDF version: Problem solved? Assessing the Supreme Court’s Latest Statement on the Law Governing Conflicts of Interest

Case commented on: Canadian National Railway Co v McKercher LLP, 2013 SCC 39.

On July 5 2013 the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated judgment in Canadian National Railway v McKercher LLP. The case invited the Court to reconsider its “bright line” rule for current client conflicts, as previously set out by the Court in R v Neil, 2002 SCC 70. The bright line rule provides that, absent client consent, a “lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client – even if the two mandates are unrelated” (Neil at para 29, emphasis in original).