ABLawg

Canada (Attorney General) v. Chak appears to be the first written decision by our former colleague, Keith Yamauchi, who was appointed to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta on December 14, 2007. That fact alone might make it worthy of a comment here. However, within his decision concerning a rather mundane student loan collection matter, the Honourable Mr. Justice K.D. Yamauchi also raises one interesting point.

City Amends Land Use Bylaw in Bad Faith

By Nickie Nikolaou

On February 25, 2008

In Administrative Law, Municipal Law, Property

Cases Considered: Airport Self Storage and R.V. Centre Ltd. v. Leduc (City), 2008 ABQB 12

PDF Version: City Amends Land Use Bylaw in Bad Faith

Although municipal councils in Alberta are generally entitled to amend land use bylaws by following procedures set out in the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”), R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, this decision tells us that sometimes a council will have to go further in order to ensure procedural fairness. There are circumstances where personalized written notice of a hearing to consider a proposed land use amendment will be required. As always, the content of the duty of fairness varies according to the particular facts of each case. The facts here are lengthy, but they are critical.

Canada Safeway’s Charter Right to Freedom of Expression Not Violated by Privacy Legislation When it Reported Co-op Employee’s Unique Shopping Methods

By Linda McKay-Panos

On February 20, 2008

In Constitutional, Human Rights

Cases Considered: Canada Safeway Limited v. Shineton, 2007 ABQB 773

PDF Version: Canada Safeway’s Charter Right to Freedom of Expression Not Violated by Privacy Legislation When it Reported Co-op Employee’s Unique Shopping Methods

In a judicial review of a decision of Alberta’s Privacy Commissioner, Canada Safeway put forward a very interesting (yet ultimately unsuccessful) argument as a defence to a complaint that it breached a person’s privacy; Safeway argued that s. 7 (1)(d) of the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”), S.A. 2003, c. P-6.5 violated its right to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) s. 2(b).

Security for Costs on Appeals by Impecunious and Vexatious Litigants

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On February 20, 2008

In Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigants

Cases Considered: Opal v. White, 2008 ABCA 25

PDF Version: Security for Costs on Appeals by Impecunious and Vexatious Litigants

The very short judgment of Mr. Justice Frans Slatter in Opal v. White is an unlikely candidate for a comment. It is barely more than a page – a scant seven paragraphs – and it cites neither rules nor precedents in deciding three applications for security for costs. Nevertheless, the judgment’s treatment of the issue of security for costs on an appeal of an order declaring the appellant to be a vexatious litigant is noteworthy.

Calculating the Price of Gas: Wet or Dry?

By Nigel Bankes

On February 20, 2008

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Cargill Gas Marketing Ltd. v. Alberta Northeast Gas Limited, 2008 ABQB 59

PDF Version: Calculating the Price of Gas: Wet or Dry?

When gas is sold on the basis of its thermal or heating value it is necessary to provide a formula for converting delivered volumes (Mcf) into British thermal units or equivalent. And it makes a difference whether the formula uses an assumption of wet gas or dry gas. Wet gas will have a lower heating content than dry. But what happens if the formula prescribes the use of wet gas but in fact actual deliveries under the contract have always been dry gas? This was the issue before Justice T.F. McMahon in the present case.

The Standard of Review on Appeals of Masters’ Decisions to the Court of Queen’s Bench

City Amends Land Use Bylaw in Bad Faith

Canada Safeway’s Charter Right to Freedom of Expression Not Violated by Privacy Legislation When it Reported Co-op Employee’s Unique Shopping Methods

Security for Costs on Appeals by Impecunious and Vexatious Litigants

Calculating the Price of Gas: Wet or Dry?