ABLawg - - Page 309

ABlawg is pleased to announce a series of posts on Bill 2, the Responsible Energy Development Act. This important Bill proposes to create a “single window” for reviewing and approving energy projects in Alberta.

The first in the series is a post by Shaun Fluker on the independence of the Alberta Energy Regulator. This post will be followed by followed by posts dealing with a number of topics that we expect will include: the implications of the Bill for the jurisdiction of the Environmental Appeal Board; an overview of the Bill; the standing rules under the Bill; the proposed arrangements for the enforcement of private surface arrangements; the Regulator as a corporation; the Regulator and the duty to consult; the power of the Minister to issue directions to the Regulator; a comparative take on the single window experience looking at developments in Australia; and water management under the Bill.

ABlawg has already posted two blogs on the background to this Bill, one by Nigel Bankes, “A single window for the permitting of energy projects in Alberta: who will look out for the chickens?”and the other by Nickie Vlavianos, “The Proposed Single Energy Regulator: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Go from Here?”

Court of Appeal approves decision concluding that water rights did not pass with a transfer of land

By Nigel Bankes

On November 7, 2012

In Property, Water Law

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).

Empty Voting

By Bryce Tingle

On November 5, 2012

In Corporate / Commercial

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.

Addictions, Human Rights and Professional Discipline – Will the SCC Wade In?

By Linda McKay-Panos

On November 1, 2012

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

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”).

The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On October 30, 2012

In Civil Procedure, Family, Vexatious Litigants

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.

Announcement: Bill 2, the Responsible Energy Development Act

Court of Appeal approves decision concluding that water rights did not pass with a transfer of land

Empty Voting

Addictions, Human Rights and Professional Discipline – Will the SCC Wade In?

The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigant Case