ABLawg

Black Bear Crossing (“BBC”) consists of 161 units on the former barracks of the Canadian Armed Forces, situated on 940 acres on the northeast corner of the Tsuu T’ina reserve. The residences have been occupied by Tsuu T’ina Band members, as well as those claiming Band membership, since Canadian Forces personnel moved out when the base was decommissioned in 1996. In 1998, four Tsuu T’ina families who had been unable to find affordable housing moved into the unoccupied residences and within a month, most of the BBC units were occupied.

Ombudsman May Review and Make Recommendations Regarding Decisions of Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission

By Linda McKay-Panos

On April 21, 2008

In Human Rights

Cases Considered: Alberta (Ombudsman) v. Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission), 2008 ABQB 168

PDF Version: Ombudsman May Review and Make Recommendations Regarding Decisions of Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission

This case, although somewhat technical, is interesting from the perspective of a person who would like the Chief Commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (“Commission”) to reconsider a decision. Though such cases may be brought to the Court of Queen’s Bench, people often choose not to take that route because the court is limited judicial review – i.e. it will only look at whether the Chief Commissioner (or administrative official in other cases) exercised his or her power in an arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise unreasonable way when making the decision. Courts do not usually review the evidence in the case, or the decision itself, but instead focus on the process that was followed in arriving at a decision.

International Commercial Arbitration: Too Costly Private Justice?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On April 14, 2008

In Arbitration

Cases Considered: Resin Systems Inc. v. Industrial Service & Machine Inc., 2008 ABCA 104

PDF Version: International Commercial Arbitration: Too Costly Private Justice?

The Court of Appeal’s Memorandum of Judgment in Resin Systems Inc. v. Industrial Service & Machine Inc. offers a rare, albeit small, glimpse into the arena of international commercial arbitration. It tells us something about the cost of this type of private justice; one of the major differences between courts and arbitration is that contractual arbitrators are not paid for by taxpayers, but are privately paid for. The judgment also illustrates an unusual lack of deference to arbitration on the part of the Court of Appeal and a lack of faith in an arbitrator’s ability to control the fairness and efficiency of arbitration proceedings through the allocation of costs.

Stay Of Interim Funding Denied In Language Rights Case

By Jennifer Koshan

On April 11, 2008

In Constitutional

Cases Considered: R. v. Caron, 2008 ABCA 111

PDF Version: Stay Of Interim Funding Denied In Language Rights Case

In October 2007, Gilles Caron was awarded interim costs by Mr. Justice V.O. Ouellette of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in relation to legal fees for a language rights claim (see here). This case was the subject of an earlier comment on ABlawg. On March 19, 2008, Justice Keith Ritter of the Alberta Court of Appeal denied the Crown’s application for a stay of the interim costs order pending appeal.

Calgary Bar Cannot Discriminate on the Basis of Race or Religion

By Linda McKay-Panos

On April 7, 2008

In Human Rights

Cases Considered: Jaspal Randhawa v. Tequila Bar & Grill Ltd. o/a Tequila Nightclub (March 17, 2008 Alta. H.R.P. Diane Colley-Urquhart, Panel Chair)

PDF Version: Calgary Bar Cannot Discriminate on the Basis of Race or Religion

The Alberta Human Rights Panel (“Panel”) recently joined human rights commissions in other provinces in addressing an all too common complaint—racial discrimination by a popular restaurant or bar. Mr. Jaspal Randhawa complained when he was denied entry into Calgary’s Tequila Bar and Grill Ltd. (“Tequila”) on July 9, 2004. Tequila’s manager, Mr. Harry Dimitriadis, was the respondent. Mr. Randhawa complained that he was denied goods, services and accommodation on the grounds of ancestry, race and religious beliefs, contrary to s.4 of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (“HRCMA”), R.S.A. 2000, c. H-14.