ABLawg - - Page 342

Case considered: Scheffelmeier v. Krassman, 2011 ABCA 64

In Scheffelmeier v. Krassman the Alberta Court of Appeal once again dealt with tracing exempt property under the Matrimonial Property Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-8 (MPA). Tracing is one of the more contentious matters in matrimonial property litigation, as is the matter of non-disclosure of financial information, also a factor in this case. Scheffelmeier is of interest because it includes a dissenting opinion on the application of the long-standing principle that “[t]racing can be inferred, implied, or presumed” (Harrower v. Harrower (1989), 97 A.R. 141; 21 R.F.L. (3d) 369 at 376 (C.A.)). The point of contention between the majority opinion of Mr. Justice Ronald L. Berger and Madam Justice Patricia Rowbotham and the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice J.D. Bruce McDonald also illustrates the problem caused by the lack of enforcement mechanisms for the disclosure requirements in the MPA.

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 3.37, Applications for Default Judgment

By Admin

On March 7, 2011

In Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court

Case commented on: Toerper v. Hoard, 2011 ABQB 85

Toerper v. Hoard involved a claim for breach of contract and breach of trust or fiduciary duty by Elizabeth Toerper against several defendants. The defendant 1215396 Alberta Ltd. was noted in default on March 24, 2010, and the statement of defence of Graham Hoard and 919035 Alberta Ltd. was struck on June 11, 2010. An order directed that the action be set down for summary trial for an assessment of damages.

Regulatory chill, weak regional plans, and lots of jobs for lawyers: the proposed amendments to the Alberta Land Stewardship Act

By Nigel Bankes

On March 4, 2011

In Environmental, Property, Protection of Spaces

PDF version: Regulatory chill, weak regional plans, and lots of jobs for lawyers: the proposed amendments to the Alberta Land Stewardship Act

Legislation commented on: Bill 10, the Alberta Land Stewardship Amendment Act, 2011

In an earlier blog, I commented on one aspect of the on-going debate in Alberta on the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c.A-26.8 (ALSA). On March 1, 2011 the government introduced Bill 10, the Alberta Land Stewardship Amendment Act, 2011. The Bill contains 12 pages of amendments to the Act. I think that the Bill will encourage the adoption of timid plans that will not achieve the noble purpose of the legislation. I also think that the amendments will create significant uncertainty and encourage litigation. The big winners from this Bill will be lawyers; the environment will be the loser. And if the environment loses then we all lose; whether we happen to be landowners or not.

Once Again, ABCA deals with Jurisdictional Issue of Labour Arbitration Board vs. Human Rights Commission

By Linda McKay-Panos

On March 3, 2011

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

PDF version: Once Again, ABCA deals with Jurisdictional Issue of Labour Arbitration Board vs. Human Rights Commission

Case considered: Calgary (City) v Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2011 ABCA 65

Previously, the Alberta Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of what would occur if both the Human Rights Commission and another administrative body (such as a labour arbitration board) might have jurisdiction over an issue. In two decisions released one right after the other, Calgary Health Region v Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission and Diana Hurkens-Reurink, 2007 ABCA 120 and Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 583 v City of Calgary and Labour Arbitration Board, 2007 ABCA 121, the ABCA held that where two tribunals were available, the employee or his/her union could pursue either avenue for a remedy. However, the Court also made it clear that the first tribunal’s decision might be binding on the second tribunal. Consequently, if the labour arbitrator found that there was no discrimination in the case, that ruling would probably be binding on the Commission (if that process occurred later).

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 9.15, Setting Aside a Judgment

By Admin

On February 27, 2011

In Civil Procedure: New Rules of Court

Case commented on: Montes v. Al-Shiraida, 2011 ABQB 54

Manuel and Teresa Montes were injured in a motor vehicle accident. They each filed a statement of claim alleging that the accident was caused either by Al-Shiraida or by an unknown person operating a motor vehicle owned by Al-Shiraida. The Montes and the Administrator of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Act obtained consent judgments against Al-Shiraida. Al-Shiraida made two applications to set aside each of the consent judgments.

Tracing Original Property to Replacement Property: What Evidence is Required?

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 3.37, Applications for Default Judgment

Regulatory chill, weak regional plans, and lots of jobs for lawyers: the proposed amendments to the Alberta Land Stewardship Act

Once Again, ABCA deals with Jurisdictional Issue of Labour Arbitration Board vs. Human Rights Commission

New Rules of Court Interpreted: Rule 9.15, Setting Aside a Judgment