Canada’s online legal magazine.

Search Results

Your search for “\"alberta rules\"” has returned the following results:

Alberta Rules of Court Regulation

Happy Friday! The long awaited, new Alberta Rules of Court regulation is available.
Order in Council 256/2010 alerts us that the Rules of Court is regulation made under the authority of section 28.1 of the Judicature Act. The O.C. contains the appendix that is the Rules regulation.

As previously mentioned this document is a culmination of hard work by many in the legal community. Congratulations to all who contributed to the rules revision. . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law: Legislation

Draft Alberta Rules of Court Now Available

There is a draft copy of the new Alberta Rules of Court available.

As you learned from Slaw the new Rules of Court are scheduled to come into force on November 1, 2010.

There is this big caveat to be aware of:

Please note: This draft of the new Alberta Rules of Court is provided for information purposes only, and is subject to further revision. The new Alberta Rules of Court have not yet received the final recommendation of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, nor has the regulation been made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Reference

. . . [more]
Posted in: Substantive Law: Legislation

Alberta Rules of Court Implementation Date Revealed

The new Alberta Rules of Court will be implemented on November 1, 2010. This is the culmination of a project begun in 2001 to redraft the Alberta Rules.

The Rules have not been significantly revised since 1968. The Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) was given a mandate to review the Rules of Court and produce recommendations for a new set of Rules. The project goal was to create rules that are clear, useful and effective tools for accessing a fair, timely and cost efficient civil justice system.

The old rules are available online from Alberta Queen’s Printer. The . . . [more]

Posted in: Substantive Law

New Alberta Rules of Court One Step Closer

The Alberta Law Reform Institute has been drafting a new set of court rules for Alberta since 2001. Our previous rules came out in 1968 and after 40 years of use, they are not a cohesive read. A little about the project from ALRI’s perspective:

The project goal was to create rules that are clear, useful and effective tools for accessing a fair, timely and cost efficient civil justice system. The proposed rules are:

* short — arranged and written in plain English,
* clear — describe a logical step-by-step process for carrying out a lawsuit, and
* user-friendly —

. . . [more]
Posted in: Substantive Law: Legislation

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. Robertson v Arthikharnu, 2015 ABPC 257 (CanLII)

[26] For her services a lawyer is entitled to charge a fair and reasonable fee which will depend upon and reflect many factors. Rule 613 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alberta Regulation 390/68, lists six factors and the commentary under the Code of Conduct, s2.06(1), lists eleven factors. These factors include such . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. Warner v Calgary Regional Health Authority (Rockyview General Hospital), 2020 ABQB 172 (CanLII)

[38] An independent intervening event is an event unrelated to the tort, such as a disease or a non-tortious accident, that occurs after the plaintiff suffers injuries from the tort: Athey at para 31. A finding of an independent intervening event does not necessarily result in a break in . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Commissioning Affidavits: The LSO Is Only Part of the Picture

To many people’s delight, the Law Society of Ontario has stated that it is interpreting section 9 of the Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act to include virtual commissioning. Reponses to a Slaw post by Pulat Yunusov from last November, in support of the LSO’s then position against virtual commissioning were dismissive of his concerns about virtual commissioning; they also illustrate the eagerness with which people are keen to throw off the bonds of in-person commissioning. (Yunusov stressed the importance of the ritual, as well as the inability of meeting some requirements through technology.)

However, the LSO is not the only . . . [more]

Posted in: Practice of Law: Future of Practice, Technology: Internet

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. UAlberta Pro-Life v Governors of the University of Alberta, 2020 ABCA 1 (CanLII)

[147] The reference to the Alberta Human Rights Act is interesting. It is not entirely obvious why that enactment’s existence should speak against recognizing a s 32 Charter application to freedom of expression exercised by students on a University campus. The rights and protections of that Act are . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Price v. H. Lundbeck A/S, 2018 ONSC 4333 (CanLII)

Approximately three and a half years ago, pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, [Plaintiff] commenced a proposed class action against H. Lundbeck A/S and Lundbeck Canada Inc. (collectively “Lundbeck”), which are pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the drug “citalopram,” under the brand name Celexa®.

[2] Citalopram is an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) indicated . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

Summaries Sunday: Supreme Advocacy

On one Sunday each month we bring you a summary from Supreme Advocacy LLP of recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers a weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter, to which you may subscribe. It’s a summary of all appeals and leaves to appeal granted, so you know what the S.C.C. will soon be dealing with (Mar. 17, 2017 to April 20, 2017 inclusive).

Appeals

Professions: Costs Against Lawyers Personally

Québec (Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v. Jodoin, 2017 SCC 26 (36539)

The courts’ power to award costs against a lawyer personally is not limited . . . [more]

Posted in: Summaries Sunday

Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. Pyrrha Design Inc v Plum and Posey Inc, 2016 ABCA 12

[10] And, quite apart from avoiding the multiplicity of actions – the mischief sought to be avoided by s 8 of the Judicature Act and R 1.3 of the Alberta Rules of Court, a proposition for which there is also ample case authority – the chambers judge properly adhered to . . . [more]

Posted in: Wednesday: What's Hot on CanLII

New Alberta Court of Appeal Rules

Yesterday, September 1, 2014, the new Alberta Court of Appeal Rules came into effect. The new rules were announced on May 23, and the new rules themselves were enacted on March 12, 2014. An announcement explains:

When the Alberta Rules of Court were replaced in November,
2010, they did not contain rules for appeals to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. While we waited for these new appellate rules, the “old (1968) rules” continued to apply to appeals to the Court of Appeal. With the enactment of the new Court of Appeal rules , all of the 2010 Rules of

. . . [more]
Posted in: Legal Information