ABLawg

Issue of Timing Arises Again: Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Quashes Decision of Information and Privacy Commissioner for Reasonable Apprehension of Bias

On February 25, 2011

In Administrative Law, Privacy, Supreme Court of Canada

PDF version: Issue of Timing Arises Again: Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Quashes Decision of Information and Privacy Commissioner for Reasonable Apprehension of Bias

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.

Court of Appeal grants relief from forfeiture in an oil and gas lease case

By Nigel Bankes

On February 24, 2011

In Oil & Gas

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.

Mandatory Retirement Issue for Air Canada Pilots Has Taken Flight Again

By Linda McKay-Panos

On February 23, 2011

In Constitutional, Human Rights

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.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s Marriage Commissioners Decision – The Never-Ending Fight for Human Rights of Same-Sex Couples

By Melissa Luhtanen

On February 23, 2011

In Constitutional, Human Rights, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Melissa Luhtanen

PDF Version: The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s Marriage Commissioners Decision – The Never-Ending Fight for Human Rights of Same-Sex Couples

Case and Legislation Commented On: In the Matter of Marriage Commissioners Appointed under the Marriage Act, SS 1995, c M-4.1, 2011 SKCA 3; Marriage Act, RSA 2000, c M-5

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal considered two proposed amendments to the Marriage Act, S.S. 1995, c. M-4.1. The Act legislates on the solemnization of marriage in Saskatchewan. It provides for specific religious officials and marriage commissioners to solemnize marriages. The Lieutenant Governor in Council in Saskatchewan sought the Court’s opinion on potentially amending the Marriage Act after complaints from marriage commissioners who said that solemnizing same-sex marriages breached their rights under s.2(a) of the Charter.

Supreme Court Broadly Interprets s. 99(1) of the National Energy Board Act

By Matthew Ducharme

On February 18, 2011

In Administrative Law, Costs, Oil & Gas, Supreme Court of Canada

PDF version: Supreme Court Broadly Interprets s. 99(1) of the National Energy Board Act

Case considered: Smith v Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7

In Smith v Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7 (Smith) all nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed a broad view of the power of the federal Pipeline Arbitration Committee (PAC) established under the National Energy Board Act, RSC 1985 c N-7 (NEBA) to award costs to a claimant to an arbitration proceeding. Committee costs may include solicitor-client costs of related litigation. The Court grounded its finding in subsection 99(1) of the NEBA, which if triggered requires a company to pay “all legal, appraisal and other costs determined by the Committee to have been reasonably incurred by that person in asserting that person’s claim for compensation,” and in the history of statutory reform of the law of expropriation, specifically the principle of full compensation for expropriation. The Court was silent on the Federal Court of Appeal finding that matters for which a committee may award compensation are restricted by section 84 of the NEBA, under which litigation costs are not compensable (Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v Smith, 2009 FCA 110 at para. 55 (Smith FCA)). The impact of Smith may be limited to cases in which compensation awarded by the committee exceeds 85 percent of the value offered by the company, as the statutory basis for the Court’s decision is subsection 99(1), and the subsection is triggered only where the 85 percent threshold is exceeded.