ABLawg

Cases Considered: Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. v. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, 2008 ABCA 405;
Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. v. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, 2009 ABCA 3.

PDF Version: Obtaining leave to appeal an ERCB decision: Where is the justice?

Section 41 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act, R.S.A. 2000 c. E-10 provides for an appeal from a decision of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) on questions of law or jurisdiction with leave of the Court of Appeal. The test for leave includes a consideration of four factors: (1) whether the point on appeal is of significance to the practice; (2) whether the point raised is of significance to the action itself; (3) whether the appeal is prima facie meritorious; and (4) whether the appeal will unduly hinder the progress of the action. Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. v. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board is one of many recent leave to appeal decisions from the Court (See for example “Landowners, Procedural Fairness and Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board” ). What strikes me about this decision is how it compares to the Court’s decision to deny leave to appeal in Sawyer v. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, 2007 ABCA 297 (see “Standing against public participation at the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board”).

The Counterview to a National Securities Regulator in Canada

By Shaun Fluker

On January 17, 2009

In Securities

PDF Version: The Counterview to a National Securities Regulator in Canada

I am coming to the aid of an old friend. Having worked as legal counsel at the Alberta Securities Commission, I can tell you the current securities regulatory system works and is far less fragmented than most suggest. Indeed provincial (and territorial) securities regulation serves Canadians very well notwithstanding the challenges of operating within such a large and diverse a nation as Canada. Of all the legitimate reasons to implement a national securities regulator, let’s be clear that “fixing the system” is not one of them.In the early part of the 20th century, various provinces enacted securities legislation to regulate the sale of securities in their jurisdiction. In 1932, the U.K. Privy Council upheld Alberta’s securities legislation as within the provincial constitutional purview with its Lymburn v. Mayland decision, [1932] A.C. 318. Until the 1960s, most provincial governments administered their securities legislation within the executive branch. Presumably growth in the size and complexity of the capital market within certain provinces led governments to create provincial administrative agencies known as securities commissions and delegate regulatory authority to them. Shortly thereafter a federal proposal for securities regulation was published in 1979. Similar national proposals have surfaced more recently with the Crawford Report in 2005 and now the Hockin Report. The point of this history lesson is simply to observe that provincial jurisdiction over securities regulation has been challenged time and time again almost from the day it started.

The Spectre of Personal Liability for Guardians of Dependant Adults

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On January 12, 2009

In Civil Procedure

Cases Considered: Smorag v. Nadeau, 2008 ABQB 714

PDF Version: The Spectre of Personal Liability for Guardians of Dependant Adults

The decision in Smorag v. Nadeau is noteworthy because the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) argued that the defendant was personally liable for a health care decision she made in her role as the guardian of an adult who lacked the mental capacity to make that decision for herself. Madam Justice June Ross appears to have accepted this novel argument. She found that the Dependant Adults Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. D-11, under which the defendant had been appointed guardian and granted the power to make health care decisions for the dependant adult, did not protect the defendant from personal liability. Although Justice Ross did, in the end, strike down the lawsuit against the defendant personally, she did so only because she was not prepared to find a duty of care owed by the defendant to an employee of the extended care facility where the dependant adult resided. That part of the decision – an Anns analysis – raises some interesting issues in itself. However, I want to focus on the fact that the law suit against the defendant in her personal capacity got as far as the Anns analysis. I will also look at whether Bill 24, the new Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act, S.A. 2008 c. A-4.2 that will replace the Dependant Adults Act later this year, removes the spectre of personal liability for guardians.

Environmental Private Prosecution Update: John Custer v. Syncrude Canada

By Shaun Fluker

On January 9, 2009

In Environmental

Cases Considered: John Custer v. Syncrude Canada

PDF Version: Environmental Private Prosecution Update: John Custer v. Syncrude Canada

On January 7, John Custer swore an information in front of a Justice of the Peace in Edmonton alleging violation by Syncrude Canada of section 5.1 of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, S.C. 1994, c. 22 for depositing substances harmful to migratory birds in its Aurora Mines tailing pond. The prohibition in section 5.1 reads as follows:

5.1 (1) No person or vessel shall deposit a substance that is harmful to migratory birds, or permit such a substance to be deposited, in waters or an area frequented by migratory birds or in a place from which the substance may enter such waters or such an area.

Limited Partnerships: Devon Canada Corporation v. PE-Pittsfield, LLC

By Jassmine Girgis

On January 8, 2009

In Corporate / Commercial

Cases Considered: Devon Canada Corporation v. PE-Pittsfield, LLC, 2008 ABCA 393.

PDF Version: Limited Partnerships: Devon Canada Corporation v. PE-Pittsfield, LLC

In Devon Canada Corporation v. PE-Pittsfield, LLC, the Alberta Court of Appeal clarified the law respecting foreign limited partnerships and discovery of limited partners in two respects. First, it determined that limited partners cannot be examined when the limited partnership is named as a defendant in an action. Second, it determined that a foreign, unregistered limited partnership has the same rights and obligations of a limited partnership under Alberta law.