By: David Laidlaw
Matter Commented on: Lower Athabasca Regional Plan
PDF Version: Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 10-Year Review Part 2: Alberta’s Regional Plan Development
In the development of regional plans, Alberta appoints selected stakeholders to provide advice in the form of a Regional Advisory Council (RAC) in conjunction with opportunities for public consultation, with the provincial Cabinet making the final regional plan, as set out in Part 1 of this post.
By: Charlotte Dalwood
Cases Commented On: Hansman v Neufeld, 2021 BCCA 222 (CanLII); Todsen v Morse, 2022 BCSC 1341 (CanLII)
PDF Version: Anti-SLAPP Legislation and Non-Justiciable Issues: A Consideration of Hansman v Neufeld and Todsen v Morse
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in the decision Hansman v Neufeld, 2021 BCCA 222 (CanLII) (Neufeld). The case concerns an application under the Protection of Public Participation Act, SBC 2019, c 3 (PPPA) to dismiss a defamation action as a “SLAPP”: a “Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation”. Later this year, the British Columbia Supreme Court considered another application under the PPPA, likewise to dismiss a defamation action, in Todsen v Morse, 2022 BCSC 1341 (CanLII) (Todsen).
By: Lisa Silver
Case Commented On: R v Schneider, 2022 SCC 34 (CanLII)
PDF Version: What Did You Say? Making Sense of the Admissibility of Evidence in R v Schneider
The law of evidence gets a bad rap. Too often, I hear lawyers muse that the rules of evidence are to be learned by rote and applied strictly. Evidence, if you know the rules, is simply a matter of application. There’s no magic, so the naysayers say, when it comes to evidence; it is what is, or it isn’t. The rules cannot change facts, nor can they create them. As a teacher and connoisseur of the law of evidence, I disagree. Evidentiary principles are built on legal and factual relationships that can be complex and intriguing. There is a hidden joy to those rules and principles. Yet, at the same time, evidentiary rules can revel in incongruities and blurry lines. This is why when the Supreme Court of Canada releases a decision on the law of evidence, we rule-lovers (or rule-breakers – perspective is everything when it comes to evidence) sit up and take notice. The most recent evidence decision in R v Schneider, 2022 SCC 34 (CanLII), is one such case offering clarity and opaqueness, laying down principles and applications, creating agreement and dissent, and all in all a package reminiscent of an old-fashioned “whodunnit”. In short, by trying to make sense of those rules, we find them to be much more nuanced, engaging, and personal than we expected. In this blog post, we will take out the old magnifying glass to analyze the Schneider decision to see where the drama lies when the Supreme Court of Canada tries to make sense of the rules surrounding the admissibility of evidence. In doing so, I will be laying down some “rules” or propositions of my own.
By: David Laidlaw
Matter Commented on: Lower Athabasca Regional Plan
PDF Version: Lower Athabasca Regional Plan 10-Year Review
The Land Use Secretariat (LUS) had commenced the 10-year review of the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan on August 26, 2022, according to the August 29, 2022 News Release, this review was intended to give advice to the Alberta government to “assess the ongoing relevancy and effectiveness of the existing plan in supporting the long-term vision for economic, social and environmental needs in the region.” This is required under section 6(1) of the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c A-26.8 (ALSA), as previously written about by Professors Mascher, Bankes, and Olszynski. The Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) was approved in August 22, 2012 with Order in Council 268/2012 as a cabinet level regulation with LARP becoming effective on September 1, 2012. As noted in the LARP Review webpage, “[a) 10-year review does not amend, repeal or replace the regional plan. The 10-year review will result in a report from the Land Use Secretariat to the Stewardship Minister on the ongoing relevancy and effectiveness of the regional plan.”
By: Jassmine Girgis
Case Commented On: MNP Ltd v Canada Revenue Agency, 2022 ABQB 320 (CanLII)
PDF Version: How does Bankruptcy Impact the Priority of a Writ of Enforcement’s ‘Binding Interest’
This case is about the priority of a writ of enforcement’s “binding interest” upon bankruptcy. As the court found here, where a writ is not fully executed as of the date of bankruptcy, the writ’s binding interest ceases to have effect, rendering the writ holder an unsecured creditor and putting it last in priority, after secured and preferred creditors.
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén