Clarification of CBM Ownership on Freehold Lands in Alberta

PDF version: Clarification of CBM Ownership on Freehold Lands in Alberta

Legislation commented on: Bill 26, Mines and Minerals (Coalbed Methane) Amendment Act, 2010, Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Third Session, 27th Legislature, 59 Elizabeth II

One of the obstacles to coalbed methane (CBM) development on freehold lands in Alberta has been uncertainty regarding ownership of CBM on split title freehold lands. CBM ownership disputes have arisen when one person holds the title to natural gas and a different person holds the coal rights for the same parcel of land. Ron Liepert, the Minister of Energy, introduced Bill 26 in the Alberta legislature on October 27, 2010. After the first and second readings of the Bill, the Committee of the Whole passed an amended version on November 23, which includes one additional section.

Continue reading →

A challenge to help us get the word out about ABlawg

We began blogging three years ago in November 2007, and we need you to help us get the word out. We know that ABlawg has a broad readership within the legal profession, academia, the NGO sector, and the general public but we want more! Our goal is to double our number of subscribers by our official third anniversary in February 2011 (when ABlawg went “live”).

If you are already a subscriber, you will have automatically received notice of this post, but we have a challenge for you: tell five of your colleagues or friends about ABlawg and encourage them to become subscribers.

If you are reading this post and are not a subscriber, why not sign up? We’ve made it even easier to do so, either by email or by RSS feed. Just click on the links on the top right hand side of our homepage, or on our new “Subscribe” page. Subscribers receive notice of new blogs within 24 hours of posting on ABlawg. What could be better? Instant CLE! And those of you who are members of the legal profession, how about listing ABlawg as part of your continuing legal education declarations that you provide to the Law Society?

We also encourage our readers to submit responses to our posts by using the “Post a comment” function after each post. If you agree with our commentary, or especially if you have a different point of view, we want to hear from you!

As a bare bones operation, we offer no prizes, fame or glory for those of you who take on our challenge. But we do thank you for your readership and for your support.

Leave to Appeal Granted in Language Rights Case

PDF version: Leave to Appeal Granted in Language Rights Case

Case Considered: R. v. Caron, 2010 ABCA 343

Gilles Caron was charged with a traffic violation under Alberta’s Use of Highways and Rules of the Road Regulations, A.R. 304/2002, back in 2003. He sought to defend himself against that charge on the ground that Alberta legislation is unconstitutional because it is not enacted in both English and French. Caron’s case has two important dimensions to it. First, he argued that he was entitled to an interim costs award to permit him to pursue his language rights challenge, relying on British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371. This argument was successful at the Court of Queen’s Bench (see Special Enough? Interim Costs and Access to Justice) and at the Court of Appeal (see Interim Costs Order Upheld in Language Rights Case). The Supreme Court granted the Alberta government leave to appeal in August 2009, and heard the appeal on the interim costs issue on April 13, 2010.

Continue reading →

Pilot from Airdrie is Successful in Mandatory Retirement Case

PDF version: Pilot from Airdrie is Successful in Mandatory Retirement Case 

Case considered: Vilven v Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association; Kelly v Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association, 2009 CHRT 24; Remedy: 2010 CHRT 27

Recently, an Air Canada pilot from Airdrie, George Vilven, together with pilot Neil Kelly, succeeded in challenging Air Canada’s mandatory retirement policy. Mandatory retirement in human rights law has seen some interesting developments over the years. There are currently no laws in Canada that force a person to retire. In addition, the federal and most provincial governments prohibit age discrimination in their human rights legislation. Nevertheless, mandatory retirement does exist in Canada, and whether you are forced to retire and when, depends on where you live.

Continue reading →

Multiple Sexual Offence Proceedings and the Disclosure of “Records” under the Criminal Code

PDF version: Multiple Sexual Offence Proceedings and the Disclosure of “Records” under the Criminal Code

Case considered: R. v. Leykin, 2010 ABQB 631

Ruslan Leykin was charged with a number of sexual offences relating to N.W, who is also the complainant in a second sexual assault case involving a different accused. Leykin sought access to records in the possession of the Crown in relation to the second case, and argued that the governing procedure was that in R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326. The Crown argued that the proper procedure for determination of production of records was that set out under ss.278.1 to 278.9 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-46 (“the production provisions”). In a short but important decision, Justice June Ross of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench agreed with the Crown, holding that the production provisions of the Criminal Code apply to records in the possession of the Crown in relation to a separate sexual assault proceeding. Continue reading →