University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Distress for Rent in Alberta (Residential Tenancies)

By

On March 27, 2026

In Law Reform, Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service

By: Joe Sellman

Report Commented On: Residential Tenancies: Distress for Rent, Final Report 122

PDF Version: Distress for Rent in Alberta (Residential Tenancies)

How easy is it for a landlord to have a tenant’s personal property seized and sold without any oversight (either judicial or via the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service)?

Very! (depending on the circumstances).

A Hypothetical Scenario:

The surprise: You (the tenant) answer the door (to the unit you rent) and a bailiff presents you with some paperwork and tells you they are here to levy “distress for rent”, because you have not paid your rent. They continue to explain they are going to look around your apartment and take your personal property to satisfy the rent you owe to the landlord as well as their costs.

Your response: While you’ve never heard of distress for rent, and wonder if this is even legal, the bailiff seems legitimate. You try and offer to pay the rent now, the bailiff calls the civil enforcement agency and tells you they will only accept cash, certified cheque, bank draft, or money order. Unfortunately, none of those options are available to you right now.

You ask, “shouldn’t the landlord have to give me an opportunity to pay the rent before sending a bailiff? Shouldn’t there be advance notice?” The response is devastating, as these aren’t required for distress for rent.

The outcome: The bailiff leaves with your most valuable personal property, including electronics, jewelry, your rare stamp collection, and a few designer clothes you have. All you are left with is some paperwork saying you have 15 days to object.

It all happened so quickly, and then you remember you have a friend who is a lawyer. You give them a call, the first thing your friend says is “just refuse the bailiff entry”. You didn’t even know that was an option.

Read More

Back to School Act Survives Injunction Application

By

On March 26, 2026

In Charter, Constitutional, Education, Equality, Injunctions, Labour/Employment, Rule of Law

By: Jennifer Koshan

Case Commented On: Alberta Teachers Association v Alberta (AG), 2026 ABKB 190

PDF Version: Back to School Act Survives Injunction Application

On March 13, 2026, Justice Douglas R. Mah denied the application of the Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) for an interlocutory injunction to suspend operation of the Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B-05 (BSA). Background on this legislation and the Alberta government’s use of the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to override the teachers’ rights to collectively bargain and strike appears in earlier ABlawg posts here and here. This post will discuss Justice Mah’s reasons, including his commentary on the role of judges in a constitutional democracy. This commentary is a sign of the times in Alberta, with the government posing threats to the rule of law and judges feeling compelled to speak out and defend their role. And it is not just the Alberta government seeking to exert more control over the judiciary. On March 24, Alberta was joined by the governments of Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec in calling for a greater say for the provinces in the selection of federally appointed judges. The provinces’ letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney came during a week when the Supreme Court of Canada is hearing what many consider to be the most important constitutional case since the Charter came into effect in 1982, English Montreal School Board, et al v Attorney General of Quebec, et al, 2025 CanLII 2818 (SCC) (EMSB). EMSB involves foundational issues about the powers of judges after a government has invoked the Charter’s notwithstanding clause, section 33. As I will discuss, the EMSB case played a key role in Justice Mah’s decision.

Read More

The Proposed Co-operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Canada and Alberta

By

On March 18, 2026

In Administrative Law, Constitutional, Environmental, Indigenous, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Document Commented On: Draft Co-operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Canada and Alberta, March 6, 2026

PDF Version: The Proposed Co-operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Canada and Alberta

On March 6, 2026 the Governments of Canada and Alberta released a draft co-operation agreement on “Environmental and Impact Assessment”, thereby leading the way to fulfilling one of the undertakings contained in the Memorandum of Understanding on Energy (MOU) signed by the two governments on November 27, 2025. The MOU committed the parties to “Negotiate a cooperation agreement on impact assessments on or before April 1, 2026, that reduces duplication through a single assessment process that respects federal and provincial jurisdictions.” The Draft Agreement is open for comment until March 26, 2026.

Read More

Continuing Implementation of Revisions to the Columbia River Treaty

By

On March 11, 2026

In International Law, Natural Resources, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Matters Commented On: (1) Annual Report of the Permanent Engineering Board (PEB) to the Governments of the United States and Canada under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty for the period of October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2024, May 16, 2025, and (2) Flood Risk Operating Plan (FROP) for the Columbia River Treaty, June 26, 2025

PDF Version: Continuing Implementation of Revisions to the Columbia River Treaty

The Columbia River Treaty (CRT) entered into force in September 1964. While the CRT has no expiry date, certain terms of the CRT, specifically the flood control provisions of the treaty, were scheduled to change automatically on the treaty’s sixtieth anniversary (September 16, 2024) in a way that would provide the United States far less certainty as to future upstream flood control operations in Canada. For this, and a number of other reasons, the US and Canada were motivated to modernize the CRT and to that end, and as highlighted in previous posts on ABlawg, the governments of Canada and the United States entered into a non-binding agreement in principle (AiP) in July 2024 outlining proposed changes to the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) (see posts on the AiP here and here).

Read More

The Notwithstanding Clause x 4 in Alberta: Now What?

By

On March 10, 2026

In Charter, Constitutional

By: Jennifer Koshan

Legislation Commented On: Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B?0.5; Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, SA 2025, c 24 

PDF Version: The Notwithstanding Clause x 4 in Alberta: Now What?

As discussed previously on ABlawg, in the space of one month in late 2025 the Alberta government invoked the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the Charter four times through two different statutes: the Back to School Act, SA 2025, c B?0.5 (BTSA) and the Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, SA 2025, c 24 (PACSAA). The BTSA ended the Alberta teachers’ strike and lockout, ordered the teachers back to work, imposed “collective agreements”, and prohibited further strikes and lockouts with hefty penalties attached (see this post by Shaun Fluker et al). The government used section 33 to declare that the BTSA shall operate notwithstanding sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter (section 3) and purported to oust the jurisdiction of courts to hear constitutional challenges related to the legislation (section 14). The PACSAA amended three Alberta statutes that target the rights of trans and gender diverse youth by restricting access to gender-affirming health care (Health Professions Act, RSA 2000, c H-7, ss 1.91 and 1.92), prohibiting use of gender-affirming names and pronouns at school without parental consent / notification (Education Act, SA 2012, c E-0.3, s 33.2; see also amendments that limit access to education on sex, sexuality and gender identity), and limiting participation in “women-only” sports (Fairness and Safety in Sport Act, SA 2024, c F-2.5) (see this previous post). The amendments in the PACSAA again declare that these three statutes shall operate notwithstanding sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Charter. Pursuant to section 33(3) of the Charter, declarations such as those in the BTSA and PACSSA cease to have effect five years after they come into force. The BTSA and the PACSAA also declare that they apply notwithstanding the Alberta Bill of Rights, SA 2000, c A-14 and Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, but the issues arising from those declarations will not be explored here.

Read More

Page 4 of 438

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén