ABLawg

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.

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

By Shaun Fluker

On October 14, 2009

In Administrative Law, Environmental

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.

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

By Nickie Nikolaou

On October 9, 2009

In Property

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.

Unhappy differences arise in R. v. Cunningham

By Alice Woolley

On October 7, 2009

In Ethics and the Legal Profession, Supreme Court of Canada

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.)).

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

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On October 5, 2009

In Civil Procedure, Ethics and the Legal Profession

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.

Privacy and Video Surveillance on Campus

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

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

Unhappy differences arise in R. v. Cunningham

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