ABLawg

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.

An Important Development in the Kelly Appeal

By Nickie Nikolaou

On December 28, 2008

In Constitutional, Natural Resources

Cases Considered: Kelly v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 410

PDF Version: An Important Development in the Kelly Appeal

Last March I posted a blog about a Court of Appeal decision which granted a group of landowners (Kelly et al.) leave to appeal a decision of Alberta’s Energy and Utilities Board (now the Energy Resources Conservation Board). See “What does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have to do with Oil and Gas Development in Alberta?”. The grounds for leave in the Kelly appeal indicated that the Court of Appeal might have to address novel and difficult questions in relation to the possible application of section 7 of the Charter in the context of oil and gas development in Alberta. A recent development in the case, however, leaves me wondering whether the merits of the appeal will ultimately be heard or not.

What Zones Were the Subject of a Unitization Agreement?

By Nigel Bankes

On December 27, 2008

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Signalta Resources Limited v. Dominion Exploration Canada Limited, 2007 ABQB 636; Signalta Resources Limited v. Dominion Exploration Canada Limited, 2008 ABCA 437

PDF Version: What zones were the subject of a unitization agreement?

I blogged the trial decision of Justice AG Park in this case and now the Court of Appeal has affirmed. Readers wanting a full statement of the facts should review that earlier blog.

There were, as the Court put it, “no grounds for appellate intervention” (at para. 2) and in particular the Court of Appeal agreed with Justice Park that the original inclusion of the Glauconite for the section 8 lands in the schedule to the unitization agreement was a mistake. It was a mistake for two reasons: (1) Dyco (Dominion’s predecessor in title) did not have rights to the Glauconite under its farmout with Husky and therefore could not contribute Glauconite rights, and (2) Husky (which did own the Glauconite rights) never contributed them and executed the relevant agreements as a royalty owner and not as a working interest owner.

The Spectre of Personal Liability for Guardians of Dependant Adults

Environmental Private Prosecution Update: John Custer v. Syncrude Canada

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

An Important Development in the Kelly Appeal

What Zones Were the Subject of a Unitization Agreement?