ABLawg

What Happens When the Deep Rights You Just Purchased are being Drained by the Vendor’s Shallow Rights Well?

What happens when a purchaser obtains the deep rights under certain oil and gas leases (along with a producing horizontal well) and the parties exclude another vertical well on the basis that it is producing from the shallow rights retained by the vendor and later the purchaser forms the view that the well is producing from the deep rights and not the shallow rights? That is the issue on the merits in Nexxtep – barring disagreements as to just where the vertical well was producing from. At present the case is reported only on certain preliminary matters, Nexxtep’s request for an injunction and Talisman’s request for summary judgment.

Rights of First Refusal and Options to Purchase: What’s the Difference?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On June 30, 2008

In Property

Cases Considered: Koppe v. Garneau Lofts Inc., 2008 ABQB 354

PDF Version: Rights of First Refusal and Options to Purchase: What’s the Difference?

Garneau Lofts Inc. had redeveloped commercial property in an historical structure which had been St. Joseph’s Hospital on Whyte Avenue, in the City of Edmonton. The redeveloped property, with shops on the main floor, became known as the Garneau Lofts, combining unique, luxurious suites with a popular Whyte Avenue location. Dr. Sandy Koppe, an optometrist, had leased a portion of the Garneau Lofts for an upscale boutique eye wear store. He had leased it on behalf of his employer, Eye Care Optometric Group Ltd., a company in which his daughters were the only directors and shareholders.

Human Rights Panel Faced with Mandatory Retirement (Again)

By Linda McKay-Panos

On June 30, 2008

In Human Rights

Cases Considered: Webber v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (Alta. H.R.P.; May 30, 2008) (Brenda F. Scragg, Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Human Rights Panel Faced with Mandatory Retirement (Again)

Although this case deals with a legal issue that is far from new, there are a couple of significant developments regarding mandatory retirement and discrimination. Mr. Webber had worked for Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (“Canfor”) in a mill for over 24 years before retiring on October 29, 2004 at age 65, because he was subject to a long-standing mandatory retirement policy. Not wanting to retire, he had requested but been denied an extension. Although Mr. Webber was a member of a union, he did not file a grievance, but instead, on the advice of his union, on October 18, 2004, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (“Commission”) under s. 7(1)(a) of the Human Rights Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14 (“HRCMA“) for discrimination in the area of employment on the ground of age. As the matter was not resolved at the Commission, the Chief Commissioner ordered a Human Rights Panel (“Panel”) to hear the matter.

Funding Restored for Court Challenges Language Rights Programs

By Jennifer Koshan

On June 27, 2008

In Access to Justice, Constitutional

In 2 previous posts (see here and here) I discussed the application of Gilles Caron for an interim costs order to fund his language rights claim against the Alberta government. This application was required in large part because of the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program (CCP) by the Harper government in 2006. In a recent development described in an excellent post by Shelagh Day on rabble.ca the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne (FCFA) has settled its claim against the federal government for the cancellation of the CCP. Part of the settlement agreement includes the reinstatement of funding for minority language rights litigation. However, in spite of the fact that the FCFA’s claim was to restore funding for both the language rights and equality rights components of the CCP, the government only restored funding to the former. The FCFA’s victory is welcome, and may permit claims like that of Caron to proceed in the future without interim costs applications. However, there is a huge gap left by the continued inability of equality rights claimants to seek funding for their litigation. Will it take a costly lawsuit on the equality rights side to see funding restored?

Infidelity Does Not Necessarily Amount to Provocation

By Jennifer Koshan

On June 24, 2008

In Criminal, State Responses to Violence

Cases Considered: R. v. Tran, 2008 ABCA 209

PDF Version: Infidelity Does Not Necessarily Amount to Provocation

Domestic violence remains a terrible problem in Canadian society, and Alberta has one of the highest rates in the country (Karen Mihorean, Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2005 (Ottawa: Minister of Industry, 2005) at 15). Over the past 30 years, legislators, courts and law enforcement officers have generally progressed from treating such violence as a private matter, to confirming that it is as serious as other violence, and finally, to considering the family context as an aggravating circumstance. When domestic violence leads to death, however, perpetrators can argue a provocation defence just as they could in any murder trial. If successfully argued, provocation will reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter. In its recent decision in R. v. Tran, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that infidelity will not necessarily lead to a successful provocation defence in such cases.