ABLawg

As a result of the credit crunch, investors have become wary of risky investments. In its 2006 study, the BC Law Institute noted that, like many asset-backed instruments, viatical investments (or viaticals) are very risky investments. A typical viatical settlement occurs when an insured person sells his or her entitlement to receive a life insurance policy’s death benefit to a financial company who later sells a fractionalized portion of the entitlement to an investor. The financial company typically pays the premiums of the insurance policy. The primary risk is that the insured person will exceed his or her life expectancy. Another risk is that the financial company does not pay the premiums. Stack v. Hildebrand, 2008 ABQB 668 is a reminder that investors need to be cautious when considering investments in viaticals.

The End (Beginning?) of a Long Journey: Disability and Air Travel

By Linda McKay-Panos

On December 9, 2008

In Human Rights

Cases considered: McKay-Panos v. Air Canada, Decision No. 519-AT-A-2008 (Canadian Transportation Agency)

PDF Version: The End (Beginning?) of a Long Journey: Disability and Air Travel

Sometimes it takes a very long time (eleven years) to receive a legal remedy, but my case illustrates tenacity can be beneficial. The situation in which I found myself, although very personal, resulted in setting a legal precedent and hopefully in helping to protect the dignity and humanity of many disabled air travelers.

Sentencing in Sexual Assault Cases – Whither Appellate Guidance?

By Jennifer Koshan

On December 6, 2008

In Appellate Practice, State Responses to Violence

Cases considered: R. v. Jefferson, 2008 ABCA 365; R. v. C.H.L., 2008 ABCA 366.

PDF Version: Sentencing in Sexual Assault Cases – Whither Appellate Guidance?

In two decisions released on back to back days in early November, the Alberta Court of Appeal grappled with the issue of sentencing in serious sexual assault cases. Both judgments were released as Memoranda of Decision, and neither is very helpful in providing guidance to lower court judges for sentencing in this area. The cases call into question the legitimacy of a Practice Note issued by the Court of Appeal to the effect that Memoranda of Decision have less weight than Reasons for Judgment Reserved in sentencing cases. Indeed, in one of the cases the judges themselves question this practice, yet effectively perpetuate it at the same time.

Partition or sale of co-owned property?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On December 1, 2008

In Appellate Practice, Property

Cases considered: Polanski v. Roth, 2008 ABCA 378

PDF Version: Partition or sale of co-owned property?

This brief Memorandum of Judgment delivered from the bench by the Alberta Court of Appeal is notable for a number of reasons. First, the Court of Queen’s Bench judge did not give any reasons for his order but, aside from noting this fact, the Court of Appeal does not appear to be concerned by the lack of reasons and even applies “reasonableness” as the standard of review. How can a judgment given without reasons be assessed as reasonable? Second, the content of a proposal made by the appellant during settlement negotiations is used against him. Ordinarily, communications made for the purpose and in the course of negotiating a settlement are made on a “without prejudice” basis and cannot be used in court as evidence, whether “without prejudice” is expressly claimed for the communication or not. There might have been a reason why the appellant’s settlement proposal was used against him in this case, but none is offered. Third, the appellant would probably have succeeded had his application been brought between 460 and 30 years ago, when the relevant law was three old Imperial statutes dating from 1539, 1540 and 1868. The law was, however, changed to a made-in-Alberta law in 1979, and the 110 year old provision which would have assured the appellant’s win was dropped, seemingly without discussion.

Courts send message to legislature that the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act requires amendment

By Jennifer Koshan

On November 24, 2008

In Family

Cases considered: Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement, Director) v. Q.F., 2008 ABQB
PDF Version: Courts send message to legislature that the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act requires amendment

It is always interesting to see a court sending a message to the government about the difficulties presented by a particular piece of legislation. In constitutional law, the dialogue metaphor has been used (and some would say overused) to describe this process of back and forth between the courts and legislatures (see Peter Hogg and Alison Bushell, “The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps the Charter of Rights Isn’t Such a Bad Thing After All)” (1997) 35 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 75). Outside the constitutional law context, however, legislatures are not forced to listen and respond, as the remedial implications of striking down a piece of legislation, or severing certain sections as unconstitutional, are absent. Courts might thus need to repeat themselves before the legislature takes notice of non-constitutional problems with a statute, as we see in a recent child welfare case in Alberta.

Investors should be cautious about investing in viatical settlements

The End (Beginning?) of a Long Journey: Disability and Air Travel

Sentencing in Sexual Assault Cases – Whither Appellate Guidance?

Partition or sale of co-owned property?

Courts send message to legislature that the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act requires amendment