ABLawg - - Page 321

Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Distinguishes Lockerbie and Moves Away From Constrictive Definition of Employment

On April 1, 2012

PDF version: Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Distinguishes Lockerbie and Moves Away From Constrictive Definition of Employment

Decision considered: Pelley and Albers v Northern Gateway Regional School Division, 2012 AHRC 2 (Pelly and Albers)

Once again the issue of who can be considered an employer under the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000 c A-25.5 (“AHRA”) has arisen. In a previous blog, (see here), I discussed the potentially negative implications of the Lockerbie & Hole Industrial Inc. v Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, Director), 2011 ABCA 3 decision (“Lockerbie“).

Doreen Pelley and Marlene Albers each filed complaints with the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) alleging age discrimination under AHRA section 7 (1)(a) and (b) against both Northern Gateway Regional School Division (“School Division”) and either First Student Canada or 1098754 Alberta Ltd. At issue was the School Division’s policy that persons 65 years of age or older shall not be permitted to drive students.

Do Global Law Firm Mergers Expand an Arbitrator’s Continuing Obligation to Disclose Conflicts of Interest Under the ICSID Arbitration Rules?

By Elizabeth Whitsitt

On March 28, 2012

In Arbitration, Ethics and the Legal Profession, International Law

PDF version: Do Global Law Firm Mergers Expand an Arbitrator’s Continuing Obligation to Disclose Conflicts of Interest Under the ICSID Arbitration Rules?

Decision considered: ConocoPhillips Company et al. v The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Two members of an ICSID arbitral tribunal – the Honourable Judge Kenneth J. Keith and Professor Georges Abi-Saab – have dismissed Venezuela’s challenge to the tribunal’s third member, Mr. L. Yves Fortier.

Venezuela filed a formal proposal to disqualify Mr. Fortier on October 5, 2011, one day after Mr. Fortier made a disclosure to the ICSID Secretary-General regarding the upcoming merger of Norton Rose OR LLP (“Norton Rose”), the firm in which he was a partner, and Macleod Dixon LLP (“Macleod Dixon”). Macleod Dixon was a Canadian-based law firm with international offices in, among other regions, South America. Venezuela’s proposal to disqualify Mr. Fortier arose out of concerns related to Macleod Dixon’s Caracas office. Specifically, Venezuela had concerns about “the extent and depth” of that office’s representation of ConocoPhillips (the Claimant in this arbitration) and other clients in matters adverse to Venezuela, its state-owned petroleum company and/or affiliates.

Decapitating the Fisheries Act by removing the HADD: A Critique of the Rationale

By William Donahue

On March 27, 2012

In Constitutional, Environmental, Fisheries Regulation, Natural Resources

PDF version: Decapitating the Fisheries Act by removing the HADD: A Critique of the Rationale

Decision considered: Federal government proposal to remove habitat protection from the Fisheries Act.

The federal government of Canada proposes to remove the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act RSC 2000, c F-14, s 35. Countless Canadians have vigorously spoken out against this proposal because removing these provisions would be a critical and fundamental change not only to federal legislative approach, but also to the management, protection, and well-being of fisheries in Canada.

Alberta Court of Appeal Declines to Appoint Counsel in Extradition of Jorge Sosa

By Linda McKay-Panos

On March 21, 2012

In Criminal, Human Rights, International Law

Decision considered: United States of America v Sosa, 2012 ABCA 56

Emma McAuliffe wrote a blog expressing reasons why Jorge Sosa should face war crimes charges in Canada before being extradited to the United States (see: Why Canada should Address Jorge Vinicio Orantes Sosa’s Alleged War Crimes before Extraditing Him to the U.S. ) Nevertheless, Chief Justice Wittmann granted an extradition order on September 2, 2011. Sosa filed a Notice of Appeal on October 19, 2011, and a second Notice of Appeal on January 24, 2012. Since the appeal period allowed for under the Extradition Act, SC 1999, C 18 (s 50) would have expired on October 2, 2011, Sosa asked for an extension of time to proceed with the appeal. Alberta caselaw indicates that Sosa must demonstrate that he has a reasonable chance of success on the appeal before the extension will be granted (see: R v Truong, 2007 ABCA 127).

The Proper Person to Renew an Assigned Lease

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On March 15, 2012

In Property

PDF version: The Proper Person to Renew an Assigned Lease

Case considered: C & H Properties Inc. v Amos (Discount Thrift Store), 2012 ABQB 106

Carelessness with respect to assignments and subleases can easily jeopardize commercial tenants’ rights to renew their leases. Many tenants assign or sublet their rented commercial premises without seeking their landlord’s consent, which is usually required by the terms of their lease. Many commercial tenants do not seem to know the difference between assignments and subleases. Neither do they appear to realize that when they assign their lease, they lose the right to renew the lease and only their assignee has that right, whereas if they sublet then they retain the right to renew the lease. Perhaps that is why commercial lease negotiation consulting appears to be a growing business in North America. However, despite some assistance from a consultant in this case, the tenant was never able to overcome a lack of attention to details in the lease or their confusion about the difference between an assignment and a sublease.