Love is in the air at the Energy Resources Conservation Board: A comment on the Petro-Canada Sullivan Field Application

Cases Considered: Big Loop Cattle Co. v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2009 ABCA 301;
Big Loop Cattle Co. v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2009 ABCA 302;
Petro-Canada Sullivan Field Proceeding

PDF Version: Love is in the air at the Energy Resources Conservation Board: A comment on the Petro-Canada Sullivan Field Application

In separate decisions cited as Big Loop Cattle Co. v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), Madam Justice Marina Paperny dismisses two applications by the Pekisko Group et. al. for leave to appeal an Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) ruling concerning the revelation of an ERCB employee involved in a personal relationship with a Petro-Canada employee during a Petro-Canada facility application hearing. Petro Canada proposes to drill sour gas wells along the front range of the Rocky Mountains west of Longview, Alberta, and the Pekisko Group among others opposes the development. In a strange twist, the ERCB ruled on its own partiality in March 2009 and the recent Alberta Court of Appeal decisions flow from that ruling.

Continue reading →

Caveator Beware: Damages for Wrongfully Filing a Caveat Can Be Substantial

Cases Considered: Frisgo Development Inc. v. Brower, 2009 ABQB 463

PDF Version: Caveator Beware: Damages for Wrongfully Filing a Caveat Can Be Substantial

There are very few cases dealing with damages for wrongfully filing a caveat under Alberta’s land titles system. While the facts of this case are peculiar, the award of $140,000 sends a clear message. All caveators should ensure that their caveat protects a valid interest in land when it is filed and at all times thereafter. This is particularly so when parties are engaged in negotiations which may have the effect of altering the nature of the initial property interest.

Continue reading →

Unhappy differences arise in R. v. Cunningham

Case considered: R. v. Cunningham, 2008 YKCA 7

PDF version: Unhappy differences arise in R. v. Cunningham

On November 17, 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada will hear argument in R. v. Cunningham, an appeal of a judgment by the Yukon Territory Court of Appeal released June 25, 2008. If the Court upholds the YKCA decision in Cunningham it would change the law in many other Canadian provinces, including Alberta (R. v. D.D.C., (1996) 43 Alta. L.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), generally referred to as Ferguson), Saskatchewan (Mireau v. Canada et al., (1995) 128 Sask. R. 142 (C.A.)), Manitoba (R. v. M.B.D., 2003 MBCA 116) and Ontario (R. v. Chatwell, (1998) 38 O.R. (3d) 32 (C.A.)).

Continue reading →

A Custodian of a lawyer’s practice is like a . . . [what?]

Case considered: Polis v. Edwards, 2009 ABQB 520

PDF version: A Custodian of a lawyer’s practice is like a . . . [what?]

There are very few written decisions on the powers, rights and duties of custodians appointed by the Court of Queen’s Bench at the request of the Law Society of Alberta (LSA) pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L 8, section 95. Unfortunately, this decision does not add to that small body of precedents. Although the question of whether a custodian is entitled to tax the accounts of the member of the LSA whose legal business they were appointed to manage or wind up was squarely before the court, Madam Justice Jo’Anne Strekaf declined to answer the question, deciding it instead on a more factual basis. This is to be regretted, not only because there is so little law in the area, but also because, in answering these types of questions, the courts have tended to rely on interesting analogies with others in roles that require them to stand in the shoes of another person and because the answer to the question about taxation seems like an easy one.
Continue reading →

Gay fathers not seen as a parental unit under the Family Law Act

Cases Considered: D.W.H. v. D.J.R., 2009 ABQB 438

PDF Version: Gay fathers not seen as a parental unit under the Family Law Act

The law is still unclear when dealing with gay and lesbian parental units. These families slip through the gaps in legislation and under the Family Law Act, S.A. 2003, c. F-4.5. This case demonstrates some of the legal gaps that affect children and their gay, lesbian and bisexual parents.

Continue reading →