ABLawg

Case Considered: O & M Investments Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), 2010 ABQB 146

PDF version: Defining Art in the Commons: The Case of Building Owners and Graffiti in Edmonton

Graffiti, or street art, is hardly new and neither is the debate around whether it is a public nuisance or art in the commons, as was shown in O & M Investments Ltd. v. Edmonton (City). Graffiti is likely one of the world’s most contentious art forms, perhaps in part due to the subjective nature of art appreciation but also due to the renegade qualities of the installation of a piece. In O & M, a building owner contested an order issued by the City of Edmonton’s Community Standards Branch to “[r]emove all graffiti on any structures on the property that are visible to any surrounding property” (at para. 3). The order referred to graffiti that had been applied to a large wall facing a vacant lot in what can best be described as a mixed-use neighbourhood (see map here and in “street view”, move around to the west side of the building to observe the graffiti).

Leave to Appeal Granted by the SCC in Métis Status Case

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 15, 2010

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Leave to Appeal Granted by the SCC in Métis Status Case

Case Commented On: Cunningham v Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2009 ABCA 239, leave to appeal granted March 11, 2010

On March 11, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada (Justices McLachlin, Abella and Rothstein) granted leave to appeal to the Alberta government in Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) and the Registrar et al. v Barbara Cunningham et al. Dealing with the relationship between Métis and Indian status under the Métis Settlements Act, the case may take on even greater significance in light of Bill C-3, the Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act, introduced in the House of Commons on March 12, 2010.

Faint Hope for the Faint Hope Clause?

By Jennifer Koshan

On March 9, 2010

In Criminal, State Responses to Violence

Case considered: R. v. Ryan, 2010 ABQB 87

PDF version: Faint Hope for the Faint Hope Clause?

Parliament commenced a new session last week. When it was prorogued in December 2009, 14 bills containing amendments to the Criminal Code died on the order paper, including Bill C-36, the Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act. Bill C-36 would have repealed the “faint hope” clause, a provision in the Criminal Code that currently allows persons convicted of first or second degree murder to seek early release on parole after serving 15 years of their sentence. Bill C-36 had passed through three readings in the House of Commons, and was before the Liberal dominated Senate before prorogation, where the amendments to the Criminal Code were a matter of some controversy. Now, there is some indication that the government will ask the opposition to reinstate rather than reintroduce the crime bills this session. Reinstatement would require a majority vote in the House of Commons to allow the process of considering the bills to resume where it left off. The difference of course is that the Senate now has several more Conservative members, appointed during the period of prorogation. A recent Alberta case helps to illustrate the potential consequences of Bill C-36 should it become law.

The Rubber Hits the Road on Provincial Jurisdiction over Transportation Undertakings

By Alastair Lucas, Q.C.

On March 8, 2010

In Constitutional, Natural Resources

Case Considered: Consolidated Fastfrate Inc. v. Western Canada Council of Teamsters, 2009 SCC 53

PDF version: The Rubber Hits the Road on Provincial Jurisdiction over Transportation Undertakings

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.