ABLawg - - Page 98

Case Commented On: LaPrairie Works Inc v Ledcor Alberta Limited, 2019 ABQB 701(CanLII)

This case raises the interesting question of whether bidders in a tendering competition owe duties of fair play to other bidders. The plaintiffs asserted that a contract had been formed among the bidders, requiring the bidders to treat each other fairly in the bid preparation stage, and that this contract had been breached at their expense. In a judgment summarily dismissing this claim, Justice Michael Lema found that the plaintiffs had not discharged the onus of proving a contract existed (at para 57).

A Lesson in First Year Criminal Law Principles: How The Supreme Court of Canada “Modifies” Objective Mens Rea Offences in R v Javanmardi

By Lisa Silver

On November 26, 2019

In Uncategorized

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: A Lesson in First Year Criminal Law Principles: How The Supreme Court of Canada “Modifies” Objective Mens Rea Offences in R v Javanmardi

Case Commented On: R v Javanmardi, 2019 SCC 54 (CanLII)

As I come to the close of the first half of teaching 1Ls criminal law principles, I review the course syllabus for the second half of the course to revise, delete, and add relevant case readings. Next term, I will discuss those crimes, which require the objective form of liability or objective mens rea. Although this area was once rife with disagreement and fractured alliances at the Supreme Court of Canada level, at the time of formulating last year’s syllabus, objective mens rea offences, such as unlawful act manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death, were well-defined both in terms of actus reus (prohibited act) and mens rea (fault element). However, the law can and does change; either through clarification or modification of accepted legal rules and principles or through the creation of completely new ones. In R v Javanmardi, 2019 SCC 54, the most recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on objective mens rea offences, it appears the Court has done more than clarify and modify what was a settled area of law but has, arguably, radically re-defined the legal tests and principles forobjective mens rea offences in the Criminal Code. This article will attempt to deconstruct the majority decision, authored by Justice Rosalie Abella, in an effort to understand the significance of this decision and the future impact it will have to this area of law.

Public Interest Standing and Wild Horses in Alberta

By Shaun Fluker

On November 22, 2019

In Administrative Law, Environmental

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Public Interest Standing and Wild Horses in Alberta

Case commented on: Alberta’s Free Roaming Horses Society v Alberta, 2019 ABQB 714 (CanLII)

This decision grants public interest standing to Alberta’s Free Roaming Horses Society and one individual (the ‘Applicants’) seeking declarations and mandamus in relation to a 2005 ministerial designation of public lands under section 9 of the Stray Animals Act, RSA 2000, c S-20. The Applicants assert that the Minister responsible for the administration of public lands under the Act failed to comply with a statutory requirement to form an opinion in relation to designating lands upon which persons may be licensed to capture and dispose of wild horses. They accordingly sought a judicial declaration that the 2005 land designation is void and an order requiring the Minister to form the opinion and publish it prior to making any future land designations under section 9 of the Act. The Province responded that the Applicants do not have standing to commence these proceedings and that the proceedings should be struck as an abuse of process. The Province also sought summary dismissal on the basis that the Applicants’ claim is barred by a limitation period. In this decision, Mr. Justice B.A. Millar ruled that the Applicants have public interest standing, but he summarily dismissed the application because the proceedings relate to a decision made in 2005 which is far beyond the 6 month time limitation for seeking judicial review under section 3.15(2) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010.

Wear and Tear, Cleanliness, Repair, Replacement and Betterment: A Landlord’s Claims for Compensation at the End of a Residential Tenancy

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On November 8, 2019

In Landlord/Tenant, Property

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Wear and Tear, Cleanliness, Repair, Replacement and Betterment: A Landlord’s Claims for Compensation at the End of a Residential Tenancy

Case Commented On: Barry v Navratil, 2019 ABPC 229 (CanLII)

This decision by Judge Jerry LeGrandeur deals with several claims by a landlord for compensation for damages allegedly done to residential premises by former tenants. The landlord claimed for the cost of replacing the carpet in the living room, master bedroom and a closet, based on what the landlord said was damage due to pet urine and, in one specific spot, due to cigarette burns. She also claimed for the cost of replacing the kitchen countertops and backsplash due to a burn from a hot cooking pot. These two claims for replacement rather than repair raised the issue of “betterment,” because the landlord ended up in a better position than she would have been in had the carpet and countertop not been damaged. The landlord also claimed for the cost of materials to sand and paint the garage floor which had been stained by the tenant. That claim raised the issue of wear and tear, although it was resolved as a cleaning issue. Judge LeGrandeur’s written decision provides some helpful clarity for both landlords and tenants on the issues of repairing versus replacing, betterment, wear and tear, and cleaning, as well as the burden of proof, standard of proof, and the need for evidence. It also reinforces the rule that a landlord cannot demand more of a tenant than do the statutory obligations in the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, s R-17 (RTA).

Public Interest in the Transfer of Licenses from Shell Canada to Pieridae Energy?

By Shaun Fluker

On November 7, 2019

In Energy

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Public Interest in the Transfer of Licenses from Shell Canada to Pieridae Energy?

Matters commented on: AER Public Notice of Applications 1925399, 1925400, 1925403, 1925404, 1925405, and 1925406

On November 5 the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) posted notice of six applications made by Shell Canada to transfer well, pipeline and facility licenses to Pieridae Alberta Production Ltd. While it is hard to discern from the AER information portal what is actually proposed, it would appear these license transfers relate to the disposition by Shell of its foothills sour gas assets to Pieridae Energy. These assets include wells, pipelines, and associated facilities in the Waterton, Jumpingpound and Caroline gas fields west and southwest of Calgary.

This brief comment asks (1) whether the AER should conduct a public interest hearing to assess what measures should be imposed by the AER to eliminate the risk of unfunded liabilities associated with the abandonment and reclamation of these aging sour gas facilities, and (2) should the Attorney General exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction in this case.

Bidders Do Not Owe Duties of Fairness and Honesty to Other Bidders in Tendering Competitions

A Lesson in First Year Criminal Law Principles: How The Supreme Court of Canada “Modifies” Objective Mens Rea Offences in R v Javanmardi

Public Interest Standing and Wild Horses in Alberta

Wear and Tear, Cleanliness, Repair, Replacement and Betterment: A Landlord’s Claims for Compensation at the End of a Residential Tenancy

Public Interest in the Transfer of Licenses from Shell Canada to Pieridae Energy?