ABLawg - - Page 365

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 6-3 decision late last year, came down squarely in favour of provincial jurisdiction over transportation undertakings such as freight forwarding companies not themselves involved in interprovincial transportation. Shippers do not become subject to federal jurisdiction under s.92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 merely by contracting for interprovincial transportation of goods, even if the company’s service includes delivery of goods in a receiving province. A recent post on The Court considered the implications of this case for division of powers analysis; my post will consider the Court’s interpretive approach in a modern natural resources context.

A custodian of a lawyer’s practice is not a “mere warehouseman”

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On March 3, 2010

In Civil Procedure, Ethics and the Legal Profession

Case considered: Polis v. Edwards, 2010 ABCA 59

PDF version: A custodian of a lawyer’s practice is not a “mere warehouseman”

There are few written decisions on the rights, liberties, powers and immunities of custodians appointed by the court to wind up or manage another lawyer’s practice pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L 8, section 95. Polis v. Edwards, 2010 ABCA 59 adds to that small body of law, although its ability to do so was limited by the fact the appellants were self-represented – and apparently not very well self-represented at that. The Court of Appeal notes (at para. 4) that there were at least 23 different issues or grounds of appeal set out in the appellants’ joint factum and, although there might have been more, they were incomprehensible in law. Nevertheless, one legal question of interest to more than the parties was squarely before the Court of Appeal and that was the question of whether a custodian is entitled to tax the accounts of the member of the Law Society of Alberta (LSA) whose legal business they were appointed to manage or wind up. That question was, not surprisingly, answered in the affirmative.

ABlawg at Two: Assessing Our Impact

By Jennifer Koshan

On February 26, 2010

In Blogs and Websites

February 26, 2010 is the second anniversary of ABlawg. To mark this occasion, we are interested in hearing from our readers about the impact and usefulness of ABlawg.Here are some of the questions on which we would appreciate receiving feedback:

• Are you a subscriber to ABlawg?
• How often do you read ABLawg?
• Have you used ABlawg posts in your work? How?
• Are you aware of ABlawg posts that have been cited by a court, in a legal argument, in an academic article or in another blog post? Please provide details.
• Has ABlawg assisted you in understanding the law in a particular area?
• Have you posted a comment to an ABlawg post? Why or why not?
• How does ABlawg compare with other blogs that you may subscribe to?
• What can we do to improve ABlawg?

Read More

Court of Appeal Decision on Privacy Process Likely to Have Significant Impact on Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner

By Linda McKay-Panos

On February 22, 2010

In Administrative Law, Privacy

Case considered: Alberta Teachers’ Association v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2010 ABCA 26

PDF version: Court of Appeal Decision on Privacy Process Likely to Have Significant Impact on Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner

In a rare move, the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner, Frank Work, issued a strongly worded news release in response to the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Alberta Teachers’ Association v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) (“ATA“). See January 29, 2010, “Commissioner Work expresses Grave Concern over Recent Court of Appeal Ruling.” Mr. Work said, “This decision may have dire implications for every tribunal in this province which has stipulated timelines. There should be a lot of concern on that front.” What prompted this comment?

MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans): Hoisted on one’s own petard?*

By Shaun Fluker

On February 19, 2010

In Environmental, Fisheries Regulation

Case considered: MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2010 SCC 2

PDF version: MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans): Hoisted on one’s own petard?

Ecojustice, on behalf of its client MiningWatch Canada, declared victory on January 21, 2010 with the release of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans). In brief, Justice Rothstein for a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the track of environmental assessment conducted by a federal responsible authority pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37 flows directly from the scope of the project as proposed by a project proponent. The decision confirms that tracking an environmental assessment sequentially precedes project scoping under Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and is of obvious significance in the conduct of federal environmental assessment on projects in Alberta on a go forward basis.

The Rubber Hits the Road on Provincial Jurisdiction over Transportation Undertakings

A custodian of a lawyer’s practice is not a “mere warehouseman”

ABlawg at Two: Assessing Our Impact

Court of Appeal Decision on Privacy Process Likely to Have Significant Impact on Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner

MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans): Hoisted on one’s own petard?*