ABLawg

The Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10 (“SOIRA“) came into force on December 15, 2004. The SOIRA and related amendments to the Criminal Code (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46) require courts, on application of a prosecutor, to make an order requiring a person convicted of a designated sexual offence to report to a registration centre within a certain period of time after conviction, and again after moving, to provide information including their address, place of work, and other personal information. SOIRA orders last for a certain length of time (up to life), and must be made unless the impact of the order on the sex offender, “including on their privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through the effective investigation of crimes of a sexual nature” (Criminal Code, s. 490.012(4)). Two recent Alberta cases have come to different conclusions on the application of the exemption to the circumstances of the offender, and in a third case, leave to appeal the constitutionality of the SOIRA‘s retroactive application was granted.

The sky is falling, let’s blame the royalty review

By Nigel Bankes

On February 3, 2009

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

PDF Version: The sky is falling, let’s blame the royalty review

I have lived in Alberta and this city for nearly thirty years. During the fall of 2007 I thought that we had the best public policy debate that I have ever seen in this province. The subject of that debate was the province’s royalty review.

I think that it was a good debate because it was a well informed debate on a crucial public policy issue. It was a well informed debate because the province, for the first time in its history, struck a public review which articulated a set of principles that should govern royalty design. Prior to that, royalty reviews were essentially private affairs between government and industry.

Adjudicating on waterflood enhanced recovery schemes: is it time for compulsory unitization in Alberta?

By Nigel Bankes

On February 1, 2009

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Hunt Oil Company of Canada Inc: Applications to amend enhanced recovery scheme approval No. 10848 and Pool Delineation Kleskun and Puskwaskau Fields, December 23, 2008, ERCB Decision 2008-130, December 23, 2008.

PDF Version: Adjudicating on waterflood enhanced recovery schemes: is it time for compulsory unitization in Alberta?

Hunt and Galleon (and perhaps others) have interests in the same small oil pool and indeed a series of oil pools that are all “in communication” by virtue of a common aquifer. But evidently they cannot agree on how best to develop the pool, or perhaps they cannot agree on how to share the costs and benefits of joint development including the allocation of resulting production. As a result, each of them operates separate waterflood schemes in the same pool. Each such enhanced oil recovery (EOR) scheme needs to be approved by the ERCB under s.39(1)(a) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA), R.S.A. 2000, c. O-6.

Terminating a Long Term Gas Sales Contract on Account of a Material Adverse Change: The Continuing Fallout from the Collapse of the Enron Empire

By Nigel Bankes

On January 31, 2009

In Contracts, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Marathon Canada Ltd v. Enron Canada Ltd, 2008 ABQB 408;
Marathon Canada Ltd v. Enron Canada Ltd, 2009 ABCA 31.

PDF Version: Terminating a long term gas sales contract on account of a material adverse change: the continuing fallout from the collapse of the Enron Empire

The Court of Appeal, in a memorandum of judgement authored by Justices Ellen Picard, Peter Costigan and Jack Watson, has affirmed the decision at trial of Justice Terence McMahon of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. Justice McMahon held that Marathon Canada had lawfully terminated a natural gas purchase contract with Enron Canada. Marathon chose to terminate when Enron Canada’s US parent (Enron Corp) fell into serious financial difficulties. Both courts also held that: (1) Marathon was entitled to recover $560,000 damages for natural gas that it had delivered prior to contract termination, but that, (2) Enron Canada was not entitled to recover liquidated damages of some $126 million based on a counter-claim of wrongful termination and the estimated\guesstimated present value of Marathon’s future deliveries at the contract price.

Disability Discrimination in the Workplace

By Linda McKay-Panos

On January 28, 2009

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: Brewer v. Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP, 2008 ABCA 435;
Baum v. Calgary (City), 2008 ABQB 791

PDF Version: Disability Discrimination in the Workplace

Two recent Alberta decisions (one from the Court of Queen’s Bench and one from the Court of Appeal) illustrate the significance of the process followed by decision-makers when analyzing whether, under the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (“HRCMA“), a person has been discriminated against, and, if so, whether the employer has accommodated the person to the point of undue hardship. As noted by Madam Justice Eidsvik in Baum v. Calgary (City), 2008 ABQB 791 (“Baum“): “Accordingly, the law on the duty to accommodate has become quite well developed however, the initial test [see #1 below] has been sparsely discussed until recently” (at para. 29). These two cases illustrate this observation.

Challenging the Constitutionality and Applicability of the Sexual Offender Information Registry Act

The sky is falling, let’s blame the royalty review

Adjudicating on waterflood enhanced recovery schemes: is it time for compulsory unitization in Alberta?

Terminating a Long Term Gas Sales Contract on Account of a Material Adverse Change: The Continuing Fallout from the Collapse of the Enron Empire

Disability Discrimination in the Workplace