Ethics Commissioner Confirms that Premier Danielle Smith Breached the Conflicts of Interest Act – and a Fundamental Principle of Our Democracy

By: Nigel Bankes, Jennifer Koshan, and Martin Olszynski

Matter commented on: Office of the Ethics Commissioner, Report of Findings and Recommendations into allegations involving Hon. Danielle Smith, Member for Brooks-Medicine Hat, Premier of Alberta, May 17, 2023

PDF Version: Ethics Commissioner Confirms that Premier Danielle Smith Breached the Conflicts of Interest Act – and a Fundamental Principle of Our Democracy

In early January of this year, Premier Danielle Smith participated in a lengthy telephone conversation with Pastor Artur Pawlowski, who was at that time facing criminal charges and charges under the provincial Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, SA 2020, c C-32.7 in relation to the Coutts blockade. Artur Pawlowski recorded a video of that call that subsequently became available to the public. That recording triggered complaints to the Ethics Commissioner under the Conflicts of Interest Act, RSA 2000, c C-23 (COIA) by a private citizen and by Irfan Sabir, MLA for Calgary-Bhullar-McCall and NDP Justice Critic. Continue reading →

Lifting the Corporate Veil v Personal Liability Under the Oppression Remedy: When Directors Behave Badly, When is Each Remedy Appropriate?

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: FNF Enterprises Inc v Wag and Train Inc, 2023 ONCA 92 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Lifting the Corporate Veil v Personal Liability Under the Oppression Remedy: When Directors Behave Badly, When is Each Remedy Appropriate?

In FNF Enterprises Inc v Wag and Train Inc, 2023 ONCA 92 (CanLII), the sole shareholder and director of Wag and Train Inc (Wag and Train) had stripped assets from the corporation, causing the company to defeat its creditors. In an action brought by a commercial landlord, the Ontario Court of Appeal declined to lift the corporate veil because the director’s improper conduct was not the source of the corporation’s liability, but it did allow the appellants to pursue the oppression remedy against the director personally. Continue reading →

Environmental Obligations Enforced Between Private Parties: The Extension of Redwater

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2023 ABKB 109 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Environmental Obligations Enforced Between Private Parties: The Extension of Redwater

The Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2023 ABKB 109 (CanLII) (Qualex) decision extends the principles from the Supreme Court’s decision in Orphan Well Association, Alberta Energy Regulator v Grant Thornton Limited and ATB Financial, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (Redwater) to a private dispute outside insolvency proceedings. Continue reading →

First Arbitration Award under the Nunavut Agreement

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter commented on: Arbitration Award in The Inuit of Nunavut as represented by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated v His Majesty the King in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and The Commissioner of Nunavut as represented by the Government of Nunavut, and the Government of Nunavut as represented by the Premier of Nunavut, and the Government of Nunavut, Initial Decision, March 25, 2023.

PDF Version: First Arbitration Award under the Nunavut Agreement

This is the first Arbitration Award under the revised dispute resolution provisions of the Nunavut Agreement (1993). The Nunavut Agreement is the constitutionally protected land claims agreement between the Inuit of Nunavut and the Governments of Canada (GoC) and Nunavut (GN). In this Award, the Honourable Constance Hunt, acting as the sole arbitrator, has issued a series of declarations concluding that Inuit Employment Plans (IEPs) prepared by each of the GN and GoC fell short of the obligations of government under the terms of Article 23 of the Nunavut Agreement (NA). Article 23 of the NA is entitled “Inuit Employment within Government”. Continue reading →

Private Health Care and the Law Part 3: Not the Anticipated Conclusion but Still Not a Loss for Public Health Care

By: Kate Perala and Lorian Hardcastle

Decision commented on: Cambie Surgeries Corporation, et al v Attorney General of British Columbia, et al, 2023 CanLII 26745

PDF Version: Private Health Care and the Law Part 3: Not the Anticipated Conclusion but Still Not a Loss for Public Health Care

On April 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) dismissed an application for leave to appeal the decision of the BC Court of Appeal in Cambie Surgeries Corporation, et al v Attorney General of British Columbia, et al, 2023 CanLII 26745. Previous blog posts by one of the authors of this post describe the trial decision in detail (see here and here). Many expected that the SCC would hear this case, given the importance of the issues at stake, the strongly-worded concerns with the public health care system expressed by Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon at the BC Court of Appeal (Cambie Surgeries Corporation v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCCA 245 (CanLII)), and the fact that the SCC’s 2005 decision in Chaoulli v Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 35 (CanLII), left the constitutionality of limits on private finance in health care unresolved. To many, this decision represents a missed opportunity for the SCC to provide clarity on this defining yet widely-debated feature of our health care system. Continue reading →