What Happens when a Self-Rep Steps on a Procedural Landmine during Judicial Review

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently rejected an application to judicially review the dismissal of a meritorious human rights claim. Why? The self-represented applicant did not name and serve the correct respondent on time. The fatality of this misstep would have been reasonably evident to any lawyer familiar with the Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 and case law governing judicial review. For self-represented litigants, however (and particularly those coming from the relatively forgiving forum of the Alberta Human Rights Commission) this is just one of the endless procedural landmines that can destroy their claim.

photo: Sacramento County Public Law Library/flickr

Website AdministratorSeptember 2, 2015Comment

Bill C-24: Strengthening Canadian Citizenship- Weakening Global Security

On June 11th 2015 the final host of amendments created under the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (Bill C-24) came into force. Among those were amendments to section 10 of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 [Citizenship Act] greatly expanding the government’s ability to revoke Canadian citizenship. The amendments apply to naturalized Canadians, dual citizens and Canadian-born citizens who are eligible to obtain dual citizenship (Citizenship Act). Prior to Bill C-24, only naturalized citizenship could be revoked, and revocation was limited to cases where citizenship was obtained by means of fraud or false pretenses (Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Legislative Summary of Bill C-24: An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts by Julie Béchard, Penny Becklumb, & Sandra Elgersma (Ottawa: Library of Parliament, 2014), online: <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/41/2/c24-e.pdf> [Legislative Summary]). Now treason, terrorism, aiding the enemy, espionage, and communicating safeguarded or operational information have been added to the list of exile-worthy offences (Legislative Summary).

Photo: Doug/flickr

Website AdministratorJuly 24, 2015Comment

Mandatory Retirement of School Bus Drivers Again Before Alberta Human Rights Tribunal

Once again, the Human Rights Tribunal has been asked to address the issue of mandatory retirement for school bus drivers in Alberta. In an earlier case involving a preliminary hearing, Pelley and Albers v Northern Gateway Regional School Division No 76, 2012 AHRC 2 (Pelly and Albers), the Tribunal held that the School Division was an “employer” for the purposes of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000 cA-25.5 (AHRA), section 7. (See: www.ablawg.ca/2012/04/01/alberta-human-rights-tribunal-distinguishes-lockerbie-and-moves-away-from-constrictive-definition-of-employment/).

Photo: dhendrix73/flickr

Website AdministratorJuly 22, 2015Comment

Agent Regulation: The Case of Emmerson Brando (AKA Arturo Nuosci, AKA Maverick Austin Maveric, AKA Landon Emmerson Brando)

On May 12, 2015, CBC news reported that Emmerson Brando – a well-known Calgary-based court agent – had an extensive criminal history (Meghan Grant, “Emmerson Brando’s criminal past outlined in Calgary court memo” CBC News (12 May 2015) (“CBC News”). This was of great interest to the Calgary Bar owing to his regular appearances in court. Mr. Brando had served 90 days in Canadian jail and 33 months in U.S. prison for offences including fabricating evidence, fraud, identity theft, misuse of a social security number, and making a false statement in a passport application (CBC News).

Photo: Surrey County Council News/Flickr

Website AdministratorJune 18, 2015access to justiceComment

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Overturns Human Rights Tribunal’s Finding of Disability Discrimination in Employment

Syncrude Canada Ltd v Saunders, 2015 ABQB 237, case highlights the role of the appeal court in reviewing Human Rights Tribunal decisions, and the effect of the claimant’s credibility on proving discrimination on the basis of disability or perceived disability.

Photo: And parsecs to go/flickr

Website AdministratorJune 4, 2015Comment

Life, Liberty, and the Right to CanLII: Legal Research Behind Bars

The link between access to information and access to justice is not often discussed, but it is implicit in our legal process. Document production, questioning, and Crown disclosure are all premised on the notion that one needs access to relevant information in order to present one’s case. This idea should also extend to legal research. Without access to precedents, case law and procedural texts, the ability to adequately argue a case is significantly impaired.

photo: flickr/Jono Martin

Website AdministratorJune 3, 2015access to justiceComment

Will University of Calgary Privacy Case End Up Before the SCC?

The Alberta Court of Appeal (per Justices Russell Brown, Myra Bielby and Patricia Rowbotham) recently ruled that a delegate of the Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner (“Commissioner”) did not have the statutory authority to issue a notice to the University of Calgary to produce documents so that the Commissioner could determine whether the University had properly claimed that the records were subject to solicitor-client-privilege. Further, the Commissioner did not have the statutory authority to compel the production of the records.

photo: Steven Shorrock/flickr

Website AdministratorApril 24, 2015Comment

Supreme Court delivers mixed message on constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences

Mandatory minimums are a hotly contested issue in Canadian Criminal Law. In R v Nur, the Supreme Court of Canada weighed in on whether mandatory minimum sentences impose cruel and unusual punishment on offenders. What makes this particular sentencing provision interesting is that it allows the Crown to proceed either by way of summary or indictment, with only the latter carrying the minimum sentence of three years. The Dissent viewed this as a safety valve preventing less blameworthy offenders from being subject to the mandatory minimum. This view was rejected by the Majority.

photo: Keary O./flickr

Website AdministratorApril 21, 2015Comment

Alberta Arbitration Case Embraces Broadening Trend on Family Status Discrimination

The definition of discrimination on the basis of family status has recently been extended in federal and provincial human rights law to mean not only one’s relationship to another person, but also to include recognition of childcare responsibilities. The leading case, Canada v Johnstone, 2014 FCA 111, was discussed in previous posts (see here). The current case demonstrates that Alberta labour arbitrators have joined the “family”.

photo: Atli Harðarson /flickr

Website AdministratorApril 7, 2015Comment

Alberta Budget Takes Aim at Accessing Justice

Last week, Premier Prentice released the 2015 Alberta budget. Given the current economic climate and slumping oil prices, tax hikes were widely expected. This expectation, it turns out, was well founded. Although the Alberta government declined to increase corporate tax rates or implement a provincial sales tax, the budget raised taxes on income, gasoline, alcohol, and vital statistics data (among other things). This blog post is focused on another levy placed on Albertans that isn’t getting much attention in the news – increased court fees.

Under the new budget, it will cost civil and family litigants more money to access the Courts. A series of new fees is being imposed, and the existing tariffs are getting more expensive. For example, if you have a trial that exceeds five days in the Court of Queen’s Bench, you will now have to pay a $250 daily levy starting on the fifth day. To file a Counterclaim in the Court of Queen’s Bench, you’ll have to fork over a $150 filing fee. Court of Appeal Applications and Family Law Act claims are $50 to file. In addition, in a fee I find most disturbing, a litigant in in the Court of Queen’s Bench must pay $50 to file a Statement of Defence.

photo: Premier Jim Prentice/flickr

Website AdministratorApril 2, 2015access to justiceComment