ABLawg

Case commented on: Remington Development Corporation v Enmax Power Corporation, 2011 ABQB 694, aff’d 2012 ABCA 196.

Most people would think that if Utility Co (U Co) needs access to cross Y’s land in order to construct a major capital investment in the form of a utility right of way, U Co will secure any necessary access rights (easement or utility right of way) either: (1) by way of an agreement, or (2) by way of expropriation if Y tries to extract hold-out rents. In either case, U Co will want the expropriation or agreement to bind the land: i.e. to run with the land no matter what Y does with it (sell it, assign it into bankruptcy etc.). And in either case one would think that U Co (and its lawyers) would want to make sure that the agreement bound the land for so long as U Co needed the right of way – or at least for a reasonable amortization period for the investment that U Co is about to make, so as to ensure that it does not have stranded assets on its hands, or worse still, a gap in its transmission system.

Ride the Coattails –Yahoo!

By Cliff Shaw, Q.C.

On June 25, 2012

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Creditors’ Remedies

PDF version: Ride the Coattails –Yahoo!

Case considered: Toronto Dominion Bank v Letendre, 2012 ABQB 323 rev’g 2012 ABQB 369.

This was a competition for the surplus funds paid into court in a mortgage foreclosure action.The case examined policy and operational aspects of the two year limitation in section 3(1) of the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12 (“Act”).

Transporting Liberty: A Right Not to be Deprived of Access to Public Transit?

By Jennifer Koshan

On June 21, 2012

In Constitutional, Criminal, Youth and the Law

PDF version: Transporting Liberty: A Right Not to be Deprived of Access to Public Transit?

Case considered: R v S.A., 2012 ABQB 311, overturning 2011 ABPC 269

Section 7 of the Charter provides that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The liberty interest in section 7 has been slowly evolving since the Charter came into force in 1982. Debates have occurred about how broadly the right not to be deprived of liberty should be constitutionally protected, and to date a majority of the Supreme Court has not accepted a wide interpretation. In R v S.A., the issue was whether banning a young person from all Edmonton Transit System (ETS) properties for a period of time violated her protected liberty interests, and if so, whether this violation was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. At the Provincial Court level, Judge D. Dalton answered both questions in the affirmative, taking a broad approach to the interpretation of liberty (2011 ABPC 269). On appeal, Justice M.A. Binder of the Court of Queen’s Bench interpreted liberty more narrowly, and found that there was no violation of section 7 (2012 ABQB 311). An application for leave to appeal that decision was filed by S.A. on June 14. This post will contrast the two decisions and argue in favour of a broad interpretation of liberty in the circumstances of this case.

Read More

Gardening on Vacant Land –Verdant History, Volatile Endeavor

By David Laidlaw

On June 18, 2012

In Environmental, Municipal Law, Property

PDF version: Gardening on Vacant Land –Verdant History, Volatile Endeavor

Comment: Gardening on vacant land in Calgary – Part I

On the Victoria Day long-weekend in 2012, Donna Clarke and some volunteers planted potatoes on a vacant lot next door to her home in Scarboro on 17^th Avenue S.W. The fence was painted in bright colours and painted tires were used as planters. The lots were owned by Scarboro Projects Ltd., an affiliate of Vancouver mortgage firm who had foreclosed on a number of adjacent properties in 2009. Three of the buildings had been ordered demolished by the City of Calgary in 2011 as part of a crackdown on derelict properties.

Face-ing the Charter’s Application on University Campuses

By Jennifer Koshan

On June 13, 2012

In Constitutional

PDF version: Face-ing the Charter’s Application on University Campuses

Case considered: Pridgen v University of Calgary, 2012 ABCA 139

Linda McKay Panos recently posted an ABlawg comment on R v Whatcott, 2012 ABQB 231, where Justice Paul Jeffrey held that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to the actions of the University of Calgary when it was enforcing trespass legislation against a non-student distributing anti-gay leaflets on campus (see University Campus is not Charter-Free). The Court of Appeal – or more accurately one member of the Court of Appeal – came to the same conclusion in the case of Pridgen v University of Calgary, 2012 ABCA 139, albeit in different circumstances. Shaun Fluker has already commented on the administrative law aspects of Pridgen (see The need to explain yourself before imposing discipline under the law); I will deal with the Court’s assessment of whether the Charter applies to the University in the context of student discipline proceedings.

Building energy empires on (legal) foundations of sand, or, can I have my cake and eat it too?

Ride the Coattails –Yahoo!

Transporting Liberty: A Right Not to be Deprived of Access to Public Transit?

Gardening on Vacant Land –Verdant History, Volatile Endeavor

Face-ing the Charter’s Application on University Campuses