PDF version: Court of Appeal approves decision concluding that water rights did not pass with a transfer of land
Cases Considered: Canada Finance Corporation Limited v Hirsche Herefords, 2012 ABCA 315
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal from a decision of Justice Strekaf in which she had approved the sale by the receiver of a water right separate from the sale of lands to which the water right was appurtenant. In an earlier ABlawg post I commented on Justice Strekaf’s decision (here).
PDF version: Empty Voting
Cases Considered: TELUS Corporation v Mason Capital Management LLC, 2012 BCCA 403 and Mason Capital Management LLC v TELUS Corporation, 2012 BCSC 1582
The most talked about Canadian corporate legal decision this year has been a British Columbia Supreme Court judgment in relation to TELUS’ attempt to convert a class of non-voting shares into voting shares. It was not even the ruling that had everyone talking, but several paragraphs of obiter near the end of the decision. The obiter concerned the phenomenon of “empty voting” and it was deemed sufficiently newsworthy to be reported in the national newspapers and discussed in legal blogs and articles on both sides of the border.
PDF version: Addictions, Human Rights and Professional Discipline – Will the SCC Wade In?
Case Commented on: Wright v College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta (Appeals Committee), 2012 ABCA 267
In this recent case, the majority (Justice Frans Slatter, concurred with by Justice Keith Ritter) and the dissent (Justice Ronald Berger) of the Alberta Court of Appeal fundamentally disagreed on the approach to be taken when there are human rights principles at issue in professional discipline matters. Genevieve Wright and Mona Helmer were nurses who were disciplined by the College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta (“CARNA”) for stealing narcotics and for falsifying related records. Both argued that their addiction to narcotics amounted to a disability under the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 (“AHRA”). Thus, they argued that their employer had a duty to accommodate such that a modified disciplinary procedure was required under the Health Professions Act, RSA 2000, c H-7 (“HPA”).
PDF version: The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case
Case Commented on: Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571
This decision by Associate Chief Justice John D. Rooke was the subject of much media attention when it was released. That attention was well deserved. The lengthy and well-researched decision fills a gap in the jurisprudence and scholarship on vexatious litigants by shining a spotlight on and systematically examining a category of litigants for whom Justice Rooke coined the collective term “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” (OPCA) litigants. These litigants are distinguishable from the more usual types of vexatious litigants because they use a collection of techniques and arguments sold by people Justice Rooke called “gurus.” His decision is valuable for several reasons: it collects all of the reported Canadian decisions dealing with OPCA litigants, it describes the indicia by which OPCA litigants can be recognized, it describes the concepts they have relied upon and the arguments they have made and why those arguments have all failed in every Canadian court, and it discusses what judges, lawyers, and litigants can do when faced with OPCA litigants.
PDF version: Manitoba decision on the assignment of a royalty interest
Case Commented on: Campion et al v Radomski et al, 2012 MBQB 267
In this case the beneficiaries of the Milliken estate (the beneficiaries) sought to ignore an assignment of a royalty interest that Milliken had executed during his life in favour of the Manning interests. The parties entitled to the Manning royalty interest sued to enforce that assignment and in this case the court dismissed an application by the beneficiaries (the defendants) for summary judgement.
