ABLawg

In this Court of Appeal decision, three of Alberta’s most experienced justices determined that the disclosure requirements of the Franchises Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. F-23 were indeed required and that “must” meant “must.” The Franchises Act gives franchisees a right to accurate and complete information about franchisors and franchises and backs up that right with the remedy of rescission. The reserved reasons for judgment of Madam Justice Elizabeth McFadyen, concurred in by Madam Justice Carole Conrad, are a restrained seventeen paragraphs long (including statements of the relevant facts and applicable statutory provisions). The much lengthier reserved reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Jean Côté are a tour de force, providing a thorough review of the policies behind the laws requiring disclosure in the franchising context and thus much fodder for arguments by counsel in future cases. In the end, both sets of reasons recognize the exclusively statutory nature of franchisors’ obligations and franchisees’ remedies.

La Belle Province? Developments in Alberta Language Rights Cases

By Jennifer Koshan

On September 8, 2008

In Constitutional, Human Rights

Cases Considered: R. v. Caron, 2008 ABPC 232

Caron v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2008 ABCA 272.

PDF Version: La Belle Province? Developments in Alberta Language Rights Cases

On August 18, 2008 the Alberta Provincial Court posted its long awaited decision in the case of Gilles Caron. Caron was charged under an Alberta regulation with making an unsafe left turn, and sought to defend on the basis of a violation of his language rights, arguing that Alberta legislation is invalid because it is not enacted in both English and French. His case was initially fought on the issue of whether he was entitled to an interim costs award to permit him to pursue his constitutional challenge in the absence of funding from the Court Challenges program (see my earlier posts on this issue: Special Enough? Interim Costs and Access to Justice and Stay Of Interim Funding Denied In Language Rights Case). In a 96 page decision written in French, Judge L.J. Wenden of the Alberta Provincial Court found in favour of Caron’s language rights claim and accordingly dismissed his traffic offence (2008 ABPC 232).

Court of Appeal Rules in Walsh Case: End of a Seventeen Year Journey?

By Linda McKay-Panos

On September 4, 2008

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment

Cases Considered: Walsh v. Mobil Oil Canada, 2008 ABCA 268

PDF Version: Court of Appeal Rules in Walsh Case: End of a Seventeen Year Journey?

People often cite the length of time it takes to resolve human rights complaints as a deterrent to making such complaints. Delorie Walsh’s case may be cited as an extreme example. And, if the respondents appeal the current decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, the case might not be over yet.

Racial Profiling–Identification or Discrimination?

By Linda McKay-Panos

On August 30, 2008

In Human Rights

Cases Considered: Coward v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, Chief Commissioner) 2008 ABQB 455

PDF Version: Racial Profiling–Identification or Discrimination?

This case was an application for judicial review of a decision of the Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (“Commission”). It addresses some very interesting issues, including the jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter“) issues, and which police behaviour will amount to racial discrimination.

Landowners, Procedural Fairness and Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board

By Nickie Nikolaou

On August 21, 2008

In Constitutional, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Domke v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2008 ABCA 232.

PDF Version: Landowners, Procedural Fairness and Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board

In a break from what seemed to be a growing trend, Mr. Justice Keith Ritter has refused leave to appeal to a group of landowners with respect to an Energy Resources Conservation Board (“ERCB”) decision. Perhaps because of the unfortunate result in Graff v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 119 (see my post on this decision ), Justice Ritter focused on one component of the test for leave – whether the appeal was prima facie meritorious – and dismissed the application. He looked at the facts and at the evidence and decided there was no merit to any of the proposed grounds of appeal. While it is hard to quarrel with all of Justice Ritter’s conclusions, ultimately his decision raises some troubling questions about procedural fairness and the ability of landowners to participate effectively in ERCB proceedings.