ABLawg - - Page 373

On October 15, 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada denied a motion to re-hear the case of Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37. In that case, a majority of the Supreme Court denied the Hutterian Brethren’s claim that its members should be exempted from provincial photo requirements for driver’s licences based on freedom of religion. The Supreme Court did not provide any reasons for its decision, stating only as follows in a news release:

Legal ethics and academic freedom?

By Alice Woolley

On October 27, 2009

In Ethics and the Legal Profession, Legal Education

Considered: Task Force on the Canadian Common Law Degree Final Report

PDF version: Legal ethics and academic freedom?

Introduction

Last week the Federation of Law Societies issued the “Final Report” of its Task Force on the Canadian Common Law Degree. The Final Report is the third document issued by the Task Force, the first being an initial Consultation Paper in September 2008, the second being its Interim Report issued in March 2009.

The role of a limitations defence in a judicial review application involving the Crown’s duty to consult

By Nigel Bankes

On October 26, 2009

In Aboriginal, Civil Procedure

Case considered: Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta (Minister of Energy), 2009 ABQB 576

PDF version: The role of a limitations defence in a judicial review application involving the Crown’s duty to consult

Oil sands developments in Alberta are taking place in the traditional territories of First Nations in areas of the province that are subject to Treaty 8. As with the other numbered treaties, Treaty 8 contains a hunting clause with a “lands taken up” proviso which reads as follows:

And Her Majesty the Queen HEREBY AGREES with the said Indians that they shall have right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as before described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.

The Supreme Court examined the implications of this clause for Crown disposition policies in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69 (Mikisew Cree). I commented on that decision in a short note in Resources: “Mikisew Cree and the Lands Taken Up Clause of the Numbered Treaties” (2006), 92/93 Resources 1 – 8.

Property as the Right to Use

By Kathleen Ganley

On October 23, 2009

In Property

Case considered: Stout & Co. LLP v. Chez Outdoor Ltd. , 2009 ABQB 444

PDF version: Property as the Right to Use

The conception of property that a person has underlies the way in which that person thinks about property. Attempts to define the concept of property can be seen as a way to explain legal decision-making in property law. At the same time, the way in which we think about property can impact on such decisions. In this post, I will examine the decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Stout & Co. LLP v. Chez Outdoor Ltd. (“Stout“). I will consider whether the court is applying a definition of property that is similar to the view of Larissa Katz in her article, “Exclusion and Exclusivity in Property Law” (2008) 58 University of Toronto Law Journal 275. Katz views ownership as a coherent concept that focuses on the right to use and manage the property. I will begin with a brief overview of Katz’s theory, and then set out some important facts and issues in the Stout case. I will then discuss what I consider to be the main reasons for the decision in the case in the context of Katz’s article. I will save discussion of the implications of some things being property only in the context of specific legislation for the end.

Privacy and Video Surveillance on Campus

By Linda McKay-Panos

On October 19, 2009

In Privacy

PDF Version: Privacy and Video Surveillance on Campus

With thanks to Greg Hagen for his helpful suggestions on a draft of the blog.

Recently, I was walking across the campus at the University of Calgary and noticed that there was a display by an anti-abortion group (Campus Pro-Life Club). Because of a dispute over permission to have the display, the University had posted warning signs and barricades. One University sign indicated that the group was videotaping everyone who spoke to the display’s staffers and that this was contrary to the University’s Privacy Policy. Since I am aware that the University uses surveillance cameras, this incident caused me to wonder what rights students, staff and the public have with regard to video surveillance on campus, whether by the University or by others on campus.

Motion for Re-hearing of Hutterian Brethren Case Dismissed by Supreme Court of Canada

Legal ethics and academic freedom?

The role of a limitations defence in a judicial review application involving the Crown’s duty to consult

Property as the Right to Use

Privacy and Video Surveillance on Campus