Cases Considered: Pawlowski v.
The Street Church Ministries (“SCM”) and its leader, Artur Pawlowski, have been active and controversial participants in
By: Nickie Vlavianos
PDF Version: Minimum Housing Standards for Residential Tenancies Upheld
Cases Commented On: BPCL Holdings Inc. v Alberta, 2008 ABCA 153
Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”), S.A. 2004, c. R-17.1, is generally speaking a landlord-friendly statute. It is not replete with protections for tenants. One important exception is s. 16(c), a fairly recent addition to the RTA. Section 16(c) requires landlords to ensure that rental premises “meet at least the minimum standards prescribed by housing premises under the Public Health Act and regulations.” Clearly, the Legislature intended some minimal health and safety protection for tenants.
Cases Considered: Dunsmuir v.
PDF Version: Dunsmuir: Much Ado about Nothing
The majority judgment in Dunsmuir, written by Justices Bastarache and Lebel JJ. (writing also for Fish, Abella, and McLachlin JJ.), begins by setting out its grandiose intention to re-examine judicial review principles in Canadian administrative law with the view to making them more workable and coherent. In an initial glance, one is immediately struck by how such an immense and significant task is built upon a seemingly insignificant set of facts. The appellant, a former non-unionized provincial employee who was dismissed with pay in lieu of notice, sought to uphold a grievance arbitrator’s ruling that his employment be reinstated. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court judgment follows that of both the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal. One cannot also help but notice that in purporting to reformulate the pragmatic and functional approach to substantive judicial review, Dunsmuir consists of three concurring but inconsistent sets of reasons. Indeed, it is difficult to envision Dunsmuir as a defining moment in Canadian administrative law along the lines of CUPE Local 963 v.
Cases Considered: Bharwani v. Chengkalath, 2008 ABCA 148
Sometimes it becomes apparent when reading a decision that the court would have preferred to reach a different result. Usually this is because the law seems to compel the result the court reaches, but fairness demands another. The decisions of the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal in Bharwani v. Chengkalath are examples of the constraints the law occasionally puts on a court’s ability to do what seems right. The defendant in this case won, but it did not seem fair that she did.
Cases Considered: Graff v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 119
PDF Version: A Lost Opportunity for Clarifying Public Participation Issues in Oil and Gas Decision Making
Those of us following the year-long journey of the Graff family (the “Graffs”) through the Court of Appeal were stunned when the final decision was handed down on March 26, 2008. While the grounds upon which leave to appeal had been granted held out promises of clarification on certain key public participation issues in oil and gas development, none of these grounds were ultimately dealt with by the Court. Instead, both appeals (heard together) were dismissed on the basic procedural point that parties requesting standing before the Energy and Utilities Board (the “EUB”, now the ERCB) must provide at least some relevant evidence to support their claim of being “directly and adversely” affected.