ABLawg

Cases Considered: Brawn v. Profile Seismic Ltd., (June 16, 2009, Diane Colley-Urquhart Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Age Discrimination in Employment: What will Make the Grade?

Diane Colley-Urquhart, sitting as a Panel for the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (“Commission”), recently dealt with a complaint involving age discrimination in employment. This case illustrates how it can be quite difficult to prove discrimination when you have conflicting witness testimony, and how human rights law does not address unpleasant workplace cultures, when it is not clear that the offensive behaviour is based on a ground covered under human rights legislation.

Ontario Oil and Gas Case of interest to the Calgary Bar

By Nigel Bankes

On July 20, 2009

In Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Tribute Resources Inc v. McKinley Farms Ltd, 2009 CanLII 33043 (ON S.C.)

PDF version: Ontario Oil and Gas Case of interest to the Calgary Bar.

While most of the country’s oil and gas cases are decided in Alberta courts (even if in some cases the property to which the litigation pertains is, for example, in British Columbia – see eg Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Encana Oil & Gas Partnership, 2008 ABCA 267 dealing with right of first refusal issues in relation to a property in British Columbia), sometimes the courts in other Canadian jurisdictions do get to add to the body of Canadian oil and gas law.

A curious cocktail – the mixed application of the law of contracts and administrative law to universities

By Alice Woolley

On July 17, 2009

In Administrative Law, Contracts

Cases Considered: Rittenhouse-Carlson v. Portage College 2009 ABQB 342

PDF version: A curious cocktail – the mixed application of the law of contracts and administrative law to universities

Jane Rittenhouse-Carlson brought an action against Portage College alleging breach of contract and tortious conduct by the College. The alleged misconduct centered on the College’s decision to withdraw Ms. Rittenhouse-Carlson from the Health Care Aide program after she failed a practicum. Ms. Rittenhouse-Carlson alleged that she had been treated unfairly in the handling of the practicum, the assessment of it and as a result of the College’s failure to arrange an appropriate second practicum opportunity.

When No Means Yes: Voluntary Withdrawal of Consent to Medical Treatment

By Kristy Williams

On July 16, 2009

In Health Law

Case considered: V.A.H. v. Lynch, 2009 ABCA 221, overturning V.A.H. v. Lynch, 2008 ABQB

PDF version: When No Means Yes: Voluntary Withdrawal of Consent to Medical Treatment

The V.A.H. case draws attention to the challenge of determining what actions on the part of a patient constitute withdrawal of consent to medical treatment, specifically in situations where the patient is receiving psychiatric treatment. In Alberta, patients can be admitted to psychiatric facilities on either a voluntary or involuntary basis. Voluntary patients are considered to have the capacity to consent to treatment and are able to discharge themselves against medical advice. Involuntary patients are admitted under the Mental Health Act (MHA), R.S.A. 1980, c. M-13 and the issue of consent is more complex. This post deals only with voluntary patients.

The fat lady is singing: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission)

By Alice Woolley

On July 15, 2009

In Administrative Law, Energy

Case considered: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2009 ABCA 246

PDF version: The fat lady is singing: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission)

The ongoing saga of the Alberta Utilities Commission’s treatment of the removal of utility assets from rate base continues.

In 2007 ATCO filed a general rate application with the then Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (“EUB”) for approval of rates for the 2008 and 2009 test years. It advised the EUB that it was excluding the “Salt Cavern” assets from its applied-for rate base. Its justification for doing so was that while those assets had historically been included, they were no longer being used for transmission service, and would not be used in the foreseeable future. The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) advised ATCO that ATCO could not exclude the assets from the application absent an application by ATCO (and AUC approval) under s. 26 of the Gas Utilities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. G-5. Section 26 requires a gas utility to obtain permission prior to the sale, lease, mortgage, disposal or encumbrance of property. ATCO argued that since it was not selling the property or otherwise disposing of it, but was simply moving it out of rate base, approval under s. 26 should not be required. The AUC took the position that a unilateral withdrawal from rate base was equivalent to a disposition. ATCO appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.