ABLawg - - Page 340

Case commented on: Nystrom v. Ranson, 2011 ABQB 116

The Plaintiff alleged physical injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident. He claimed that his physical injuries limited his present and future vocational options and claimed past and future lost income. No psychological harm was expressly alleged in the statement of claim. The Plaintiff proposed to introduce expert evidence from an occupational therapist and a vocational counsellor at trial, in addition to the evidence of a physician and an orthopaedic surgeon. The Plaintiff agreed to an examination by two of the Defendants’ experts, an occupational therapist and a vocational therapist, but brought an application to limit the length and scope of those examinations.

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 13.7 and Fraudulent Misrepresentation

By Admin

On April 4, 2011

In Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court

Case commented on: Terrace Consulting Inc. v. Jackson, 2011 ABQB 108

The Plaintiff applied for summary judgment to enforce its remedies under an offer to purchase a condominium. The Defendants alleged misrepresentation and contended that they were told they were signing a rent to own contract. They also counterclaimed for damages in the amount of the deposit paid, which they understood to be refundable. The Defendants argued that in light of the misrepresentation, summary judgment should not be granted. The Plaintiff argued that an entire agreement clause in the purchase contract precluded the defence of misrepresentation and summary judgment should be granted.

The legal status of the commitment by Alberta’s irrigation districts to share the shortage

By Nigel Bankes

On April 1, 2011

In Water Law

PDF version: The legal status of the commitment by Alberta’s irrigation districts to share the shortage

Document commented on: Declaration re: Sharing Water for Human Needs and Livestock Sustenance During Water Shortages, Alberta Irrigation Projects Association

Last week, on World Water Day, March 22, Alberta’s thirteen irrigation districts (acting through the Alberta Irrigation Projects Association) passed a declaration entitled “Sharing Water for Human Needs and Livestock Sustenance During Water Shortages”. The Declaration is an important political statement by Alberta’s Irrigation Districts. The purpose of this blog is to assess the legal significance of the Declaration. Before doing that I will set out the Declaration and explain just what it is that the Declaration is trying to do.

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 1.2, The Purpose and Intent of the Rules and Rule 15.12, Transitional

By Admin

On March 29, 2011

In Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court

Case commented on: Lameman v Alberta, 2011 ABQB 40

Alberta and Canada brought applications under the old Rules to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim in the summer of 2009. The matter has been in case management for over two years. The applications to strike were originally set to be heard March 15 – 19, 2010. This was subsequently adjourned until December 6 – 10, 2010 with deadlines fixed for filing briefs. The plaintiffs did not raise a concern about these deadlines at a case management meeting in September 2010 but subsequently brought an adjournment application on October 19, 2010, principally on the basis that they lacked adequate financial resources to proceed.

Leave to Appeal an Arbitration Award: Is There a Public Interest Requirement?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On March 28, 2011

In Arbitration

PDF version: Leave to Appeal an Arbitration Award: Is There a Public Interest Requirement?

Case considered: Milner Power Inc. v. Coal Valley Resources Inc., 2011 ABQB 118

This brief judgment raises an interesting question. Is it possible to interpret section 44(2) of Alberta’s Arbitration Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-43 to require that leave to appeal be in the public interest, as so many Alberta decisions have done? At the end of his judgment, Mr. Justice M.A. (Mel) Binder suggested to counsel that they raise this question with the appropriate government department or legislative counsel. This is not a new issue but it has been surprisingly seldom raised during the twenty years that the provision has been in effect considering that the test for leave to appeal in section 44(2) speaks only of the “the importance to the parties” and “the rights of the parties.”