ABLawg

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: MNP Ltd v Canada Revenue Agency, 2022 ABQB 320 (CanLII)

PDF Version: How does Bankruptcy Impact the Priority of a Writ of Enforcement’s ‘Binding Interest’

This case is about the priority of a writ of enforcement’s “binding interest” upon bankruptcy. As the court found here, where a writ is not fully executed as of the date of bankruptcy, the writ’s binding interest ceases to have effect, rendering the writ holder an unsecured creditor and putting it last in priority, after secured and preferred creditors.

Taking Cybersecurity Seriously: Ten New Principles

By Jack Hoskins

On September 22, 2022

In Internet Law

By: Jack Hoskins

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-26 – An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, 1^st Sess, 44^th Parl, 2022.

PDF Version: Taking Cybersecurity Seriously: Ten New Principles

Welcome to the golden age of cybercrime. An old pastime of mischievous young computer geeks is now the domain of nation states and professional hacker groups. It’s a trillion-dollar industry. Attacks grow in number and scale every year and no one is safe, not even cybersecurity companies and the NSA. Tools developed to guard against cyberattacks are stolen and repurposed to make hacking faster and subtler. The worst is yet to come. Quantum computing may soon overpower all known methods of encryption, ushering in the “quantum apocalypse.” Deepfakes and AI are only in their infancy.

The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 4: Costs Lost in Time and Perpetual’s New Subsidiary

By Drew Yewchuk

On September 21, 2022

In Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Cases Commented on: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2022 ABQB 592

PDF Version: The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 4: Costs Lost in Time and Perpetual’s New Subsidiary

This is part 4 of a series on the litigation resulting from the Bankruptcy of Sequoia Resources Corp. (Sequoia). Part 1 covered the first application for summary dismissal and an application to intervene. Part 2 covered a costs decision against the trustee and the appeal of the first summary dismissal. Part 3 covered interlocutory decisions and the appeal of the second summary dismissal decision.

Indigenous Jurisdiction and Bill C-92 at the Supreme Court of Canada

By Kate Gunn

On September 20, 2022

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Family, Indigenous

By: Kate Gunn

Case Commented On: Reference to the Court of Appeal of Quebec in relation with the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2022 QCCA 185 (CanLII) (unofficial English translation)

PDF Version: Indigenous Jurisdiction and Bill C-92 at the Supreme Court of Canada

Persistent uncertainty regarding the extent to which governments in Canada are prepared to recognize and give effect to Indigenous Peoples’ inherent laws and jurisdiction remains a serious barrier to decolonization and reconciliation. In December 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada will consider this issue directly in the Bill C-92 Quebec Reference case. The Court will determine the constitutionality of federal legislation which affirms Indigenous Peoples’ right to regulate child and family services based on their inherent law-making authority. The decision will also have broader implications for the development of Aboriginal rights jurisprudence, including for Indigenous Peoples’ ability to make decisions based on their inherent laws.

Who is Responsible for Damage to Rental Premises Caused by Mouse Infestations – and Why?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On September 19, 2022

In Property

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Considered: Hometime Property Services Ltd v Girumnesh, 2022 ABPC 172 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Who is Responsible for Damage to Rental Premises Caused by Mouse Infestations – and Why?

The plaintiff, a corporate landlord, sued the defendant, their former residential tenant, for almost $8,000 in damages plus costs, claiming the rental premises were infested with mice when the tenant vacated. The damages were for exterminating the mice and restoring the premises to their pre-infestation condition. The tenant, who was served personally with the landlord’s civil claim, did not file a dispute note and was noted in default. Because they were noted in default and the claim was heard in Provincial Court, the tenant was deemed to have admitted the facts that were alleged in the landlord’s civil claim. Nevertheless, the landlord lost; their claim was dismissed in its entirety. Why that happened is worth taking note of.