By Mackenzie Doll-Mercier, Student at the Faculty of Law, University of Alberta When an individual has a civil litigation matter, they have a few options in how they can resolve it. A civil litigation matter could be dealt with by summary judgment, by proceeding to trial, or alternatively, it could be settled outside of court. […]
New Year, New Trial Procedure Read More »
By Joy Brailean, Student at the Faculty of Law, University of Alberta In Hryniak v Mauldin, the Supreme Court of Canada urged courts to optimize procedural mechanisms for improved access to justice. While fair adjudication is paramount to Canada’s civil justice system, excessive expense and delay can preclude equitable dispute resolution altogether. Balance must be
An Assessment of the Post-Hryniak Summary Judgement Rule in Alberta Read More »
By Jessa Meyer*, Student at the Faculty of Law, University of Alberta A vexatious litigant order (“VLO”) is used to prevent a vexatious litigant from commencing or continuing proceedings in court, unless the litigant obtains permission from the Court to do so. In 2020, the cases of Jonsson v Lymer, Makis v Alberta Health Services,
By Mackenzie Coleman, Student at the Faculty of Law, University of Alberta Within the Canadian legal system, transgender people have faced a wide range of pressing and well-documented legal needs and yet, most of these needs remain unmet. Along with this, transgender people have historically, and continually, faced systematic access to justice barriers and regularly
Transgender People’s Access to Justice in the Courts Read More »
By Rachel Poznikoff, Student at the Faculty of Law, University of Alberta With Covid-19 lockdowns came a necessary shift towards digital methods of pre-trial and trial procedures across Canada, and even as the world has resumed to a new normal, it does not appear as though these digital options are going anywhere. In Alberta, virtual
By Cassandra Paterson, Student at the Faculty of Law, University of Alberta In three recent decisions, the Alberta Court of Appeal (the “ABCA”) paid close attention to the defendants’ behaviour when deciding whether to dismiss a claim or action for delay under Rules 4.31 and 4.33 of the Alberta Rules of Court. Rules 4.31 and
By Dr. Gerard Kennedy & Tasha Ellis 5185603 Manitoba Ltd et al v Government of Manitoba et al, 2023 MBCA 47 Provinces can, theoretically, abolish private law causes of action. They can even pass legislation to extinguish judgments. But can they constitutionally compel dismissal of a cause of action while in progress? That was the
Can the Legislature Order Dismissal of a Case Against the Government? Read More »
By Dr. Gerard Kennedy & Tasha Ellis In a 2023 Manitoba Court of Appeal decision,[1] Justice Mainella provided an overview of the history, purpose, and challenges involved in vexatious litigant orders. In this vein, he also considered the “co-existing” inherent and statutory[2] jurisdiction of Manitoba courts to approve, dismiss and even initiate a motion for a vexatious
Written by Eric Epp Justice delayed is justice denied. This maxim may be all too familiar for thousands of travelers who have filed complaints with the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). The CTA is the administrative body tasked with adjudicating complaints surrounding air travel in Canada between airlines and travelers, in addition to issuing licenses for
Complaint Backlog at Canadian Transportation Agency Frustrates Air Passenger Rights Read More »
Written by Gerard Kennedy and Eric Epp The Manitoba Court of Appeal Act has imposed a leave requirement to appeal an interlocutory order made in the Court of King’s Bench as of January 2022.[1] This change hopefully discourages unnecessary litigation by restricting appeals to instances that address an action’s merits, or where appellate intervention is
Finding Clarity in Appeals – Manitoba Imposes Leave Requirement For Interlocutory Orders Read More »
