ABLawg

In what circumstances can Crown prosecutors stay proceedings with impunity? This was the issue in a recent Alberta case, R. v. Powder, where the court seemed to disagree with the Crown’s actions but also seemed to feel powerless to respond. Given that the Crown may recommence proceedings it has stayed within one year of the stay, this case has implications for how the Crown can deal with a prosecution that has gone off the rails. The case is also of interest because it involves the use of tasers, a law enforcement tool that has come under much criticism lately.

The Fraud Exception to Indefeasibility of Title: Applying Section 203 of the Land Titles Act

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On November 3, 2008

In Property

Cases Considered: Hall v. Tieken Estate, 2008 ABQB 646

PDF Version: The Fraud Exception to Indefeasibility of Title: Applying Section 203 of the Land Titles Act

The land registration system used in Alberta is established by the Land Titles Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-4 and based on the Torrens system. Under this system, the provincial government has custody of all titles, plans and other documents related to interests in land and responsibility for the accuracy of all land titles information registered or filed with it. In a jurisdiction with a Torrens system, the government guarantees that a person named as the owner in the register established and maintained by the government has a title that is subject only to encumbrances and exceptions registered against that title and to enumerated statutory exceptions. Basically, a person’s title is free of adverse claims unless those claims are mentioned on their title. Their title is “indefeasible.” There are, of course, exceptions to indefeasible title in a Torrens system. Fraud is one of those exceptions, and it was the exception in issue in this case. In general, if you participate or collude in fraud, you do not have an indefeasible title.

Mandatory Retirement and Wrongful Dismissal: An Age Old Question of Compensation for Discrimination

By Linda McKay-Panos

On November 2, 2008

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: Magnan v. Brandt Tractor Ltd., 2008 ABCA 345

PDF Version: Mandatory Retirement and Wrongful Dismissal: An Age Old Question of Compensation for Discrimination

It has long been a legal principle in Canada that there is no recognized tort of discrimination; people should be pursuing remedies for discrimination from human rights tribunals: Board of Governors of Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology v. Bhadauria, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 181. This basic principle is supported by another principle: there is no recognized cause of action for breach of a statute, especially in negligence: Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 205. These principles were considered earlier this year in Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39, where the Supreme Court held that breach of a human rights code does not amount to an independent actionable wrong. However, a recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal confirms that these legal principles can be blurred when it comes to remedying wrongful dismissal that contains an element of discrimination.

Sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act: Are Kids Really Getting Away with Murder?

By Greg Francis

On October 27, 2008

In Criminal, Youth and the Law

Cases Considered: R. v. T.W.T., 2008 ABCA 306; R. v. Williams, 2008 ABCA 317.

PDF Version: Sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act: Are Kids Really Getting Away with Murder?

The Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1 (YCJA), has been the subject of a great deal of comment and discussion in recent months. Critics argue that the legislation does not adequately respond to youth crime, and the Conservative government has proposed an overhaul of the Act (see http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/106115). In the spring, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson toured the country conducting roundtable discussions with stakeholders, seeking feedback on the need to tighten bail provisions and impose automatic adult sentences for youth found guilty of serious and violent crime and repeat offences.

A Windfall Inheritance from a Distant Relative: Daydreams Only Come True for Some

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On October 25, 2008

In Wills and Estates

Cases Considered: Hilstad Estate, 2008 ABQB 570

PDF Version: A Windfall Inheritance from a Distant Relative: Daydreams Only Come True for Some

Who hasn’t daydreamed about inheriting a fortune from some distant and unheard of relative? I suppose one of the reasons it is a fairly common reverie is because, occasionally, it really does happen. This case is about one of those occasions. In September 2008, the maternal second cousins of Mary Hilstad who were alive in her death in 1963 inherited over $900,000 in royalty payments from mines and minerals. Those second cousins are probably deceased themselves by now, but some unsuspecting child or grandchild of theirs is probably about to become more comfortable financially. Their daydreams will come true thanks to the original owner of the mines and minerals, Olaf Christian Hilstad, who died in 1915 in the Judicial District of Red Deer, Alberta, without a will, spouse or children.

Crown Discretion and the Power to Stay Proceedings

The Fraud Exception to Indefeasibility of Title: Applying Section 203 of the Land Titles Act

Mandatory Retirement and Wrongful Dismissal: An Age Old Question of Compensation for Discrimination

Sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act: Are Kids Really Getting Away with Murder?

A Windfall Inheritance from a Distant Relative: Daydreams Only Come True for Some