ABLawg

Is a dismissed complainant in a professional disciplinary proceeding sufficiently ‘aggrieved’ to seek judicial review?

On May 21, 2010

PDF version: Is a dismissed complainant in a professional disciplinary proceeding sufficiently ‘aggrieved’ to seek judicial review?

Case considered: Mitten v. College of Alberta Psychologists, 2010 ABCA 159

Many professions governed by statute have a legislated complaint process whereby the public (typically a current or former client) is able to instigate an investigation into alleged member misconduct. In March 2005, Ida Mitten filed a written complaint against her former psychologist with the College of Alberta Psychologists pursuant to section 29 of the Psychology Profession Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-36 (Note this legislation has been superceded by amendments to the Health Professions Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-7, but here the Court of Appeal applies the Psychology Profession Act in accordance with legislated transitional provisions and all section references in this comment relate to the Psychology Profession Act). Her complaint was ultimately dismissed by the College in October 2007 on the basis of insufficient evidence of psychologist misconduct.

There is Rarely Compensation for the Wrongful Filing of Caveats

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On May 17, 2010

In Property

PDF version: There is Rarely Compensation for the Wrongful Filing of Caveats

Case considered: Singh v. 862500 Alberta Ltd., 2010 ABCA 117

This case may be of interest to some because judgments considering claims for compensation for wrongly filed or maintained caveats under section 144 of the Land Titles Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-4, are not common in Alberta – only a handful seem to have been reported over the years. This case would have been more interesting had the claim succeeded, as successful lawsuits for compensation for wrongly filed or maintained caveats appear to be even rarer. The reason for the rarity of success appears to be the test for compensation in the Land Titles Act and the courts’ interpretation of that test. Section 144 requires that, in order for compensation to be awarded for the wrongful filing or maintaining of a caveat, the caveat must be filed or continued “without reasonable cause.” In Singh v. 862500 Alberta Ltd., the Court of Appeal determined that, because the appellant’s position regarding the interpretation of his purchase agreement was not “entirely unreasonable,” no compensation should be awarded for what did turn out to be a wrongful filing of a caveat. Granted, the test in section 144 is not whether the caveat is upheld but whether the caveator had reasonable cause to file a caveat. Nevertheless, in Singh v. 862500 Alberta Ltd., the bar seems to be set quite low, with “no reasonable cause” being equated to “not entirely unreasonable.”

Questions About the Role of Reasonableness and Mutual Restraining Orders in Family Violence Cases

By Jennifer Koshan

On May 14, 2010

In Family, State Responses to Violence

PDF version: Questions About the Role of Reasonableness and Mutual Restraining Orders in Family Violence Cases

Cases considered: Petropoulos v. Petropoulos, 2010 ABQB 296; Andres v. Andres, 2009 ABQB 26

The Protection Against Family Violence Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-27 (PAFVA) has been in force since 1999. One of the motivations behind the PAFVA was to make it easier for victims of family violence to obtain emergency protection than the previous system of civil restraining orders had allowed for. Nevertheless, the practice of issuing restraining orders in family violence cases has not disappeared. In fact, there are a number of cases where judges have issued “mutual restraining orders” when deciding whether to confirm emergency protection orders issued under the PAFVA. This comment will raise some concerns with that practice. It will also review the propriety of an objective component to proving family violence in order to obtain relief under the PAFVA. Both of these issues arise in two recent decisions of Justice Joanne Veit of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.

Lawyer, Not Intervenor

By Alice Woolley

On May 10, 2010

In Criminal, Ethics and the Legal Profession, Intervenors and Standing

Case considered: R. v. B.P., 2010 ABQB 204

PDF version: Lawyer, Not Intervenor

In R. v. B.P., 2010 ABQB 204, Madam Justice Strekaf denied intervenor status to the former lawyer for the appellant accused. The accused had entered a plea to a charge of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. He sought to have the plea set aside on the basis of ineffective assistance by his trial lawyer, Mr. McAviney. Mr. McAviney sought intervenor status in the appeal on the basis that the argument for ineffective assistance of counsel gave him a “direct interest in the outcome of the case” (B.P. at para. 8). He suggested that the “real lis” of the appeal was between Mr. McAviney and the accused, rather than between the accused and the Crown.

Water management planning and the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate: the Court of Appeal rejects First Nations’ application for judicial review of the South Saskatchewan Water Management Plan

By Nigel Bankes

On May 7, 2010

In Aboriginal, Water Law

Case considered: Tsuu T’ina Nation v Alberta (Environment), 2010 ABCA 137

PDF version: Water management planning and the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate

The Court of Appeal, in a reasons for judgement reserved decision written by Justice Clifton O’Brien on behalf of a unanimous three person panel (Justices Ellen Picard and Patricia Rowbotham concurring), has rejected the challenge made by two First Nations, the Tsuu T’ina and the Samson Cree, to the South Saskatchewan Water Management Plan (SS WMP). The First Nations challenged the Plan on the basis that the Crown had not fulfilled its constitutional duty to consult and accommodate when it developed and adopted that Plan. The Court found that: (1) the Crown did have a duty to consult (certainly with respect to the Tsuu T’ina, less clearly so with respect to the Samson Cree, at para.70), (2) the content of the duty to consult was at the very low end of the scale “having regard to the nature of the proposed government action, the seriousness of the appellants’ rights and claims, and the potential adverse impacts upon those rights and claims” (at para. 95), and (3) the duty to consult had been satisfied (at paras 130 and 136).