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.
Case commented on: Andriuk v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., 2011 ABQB 59
Andriuk filed a statement of claim against Merrill Lynch pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, S.A. 2003, c. C-16.5. Merrill Lynch had indicated that it would not provide a statement of defence until after the certification hearing and Andriuk did not object. Andriuk then served Merrill Lynch with a Notice to Admit Facts under the former Rule 230. Merrill Lynch claimed the Notice to Admit Facts (called a “Notice to Admit” under New Rule 6.37) was premature and otherwise improper and brought an application to strike it. Madam Justice Sheilah Martin dismissed Merrill Lynch’s application.
Case considered: Alberta Teachers’ Association v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2011 ABQB 19 (“Wright“)
Once again, the issue of timing in the investigation of privacy complaints has been raised. In Alberta Teachers’ Association v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) (“Wright“), pending litigation on the issue of timing currently before the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) prevented the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench from dealing with the timing issue; see the “Supreme Court hears Alberta Privacy Case” post commenting on ATA News v Information and Privacy Commissioner, 2010 ABCA 26 (“ATA News“). Nevertheless, since timing was raised again as an issue in Wright, the outcome of the SCC decision in ATA News will be important.
PDF version: Court of Appeal grants relief from forfeiture in an oil and gas lease case
Case commented on: Canpar Holdings Ltd. v. Petrobank Energy and Resources Ltd., 2011 ABCA 62
The principal significance of this case is that it confirms that the Court may relieve against the forfeiture of an oil and gas lease that is terminated for cause (in this case failing to calculate and tender royalties as prescribed by the lease) – as opposed to termination in accordance with its own terms (e.g. for failure to drill or produce), in which case there can be no relief. In granting relief the Court signals that it will draw guidance from non-oil and gas cases dealing with relief from forfeiture. I think that this is the first reported decision in which the Court of Appeal has exercised its discretion to relieve against forfeiture in an oil and gas lease case.
PDF version: Mandatory Retirement Issue for Air Canada Pilots Has Taken Flight Again
Case considered: Air Canada Pilots Association v Kelly, 2011 FC 120 (“Kelly“)
In 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) ruled in favour of Robert (Neil) Kelly and George Vilven, two Air Canada Pilots who had challenged their mandatory retirement at age 60. See my post on “Pilot from Airdrie is Successful in Mandatory Retirement Case.” The Tribunal in that case – Vilven v Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association; Kelly v Air Canada and Air Canada Pilots Association, 2009 CHRT 24 (Vilven and Kelly) – ruled that the mandatory retirement provisions in the airline’s collective agreement with the Air Canada Pilot’s Association (“ACPA”) (as protected under s. 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (“CHRA”)) violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter“) and could not be saved by s. 1 of the Charter. In 2011, the Federal Court agreed with the Tribunal’s decision on the Charter issue (see Kelly, paras. 50 to 351). In a decision on the remedy (2010 CHRT 27), the Tribunal ordered Air Canada to reinstate Kelly and Vilven and to compensate them for lost income.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén
