Sentences with phrase «alberta rules of court»

In addition, he was a member of the Family Law task force for the review and creation of the Alberta Rules of Court.

I have written about the new Alberta Rules of court here and here and here, but just in case, I thought it worthwhile to touch on this topic one more time.

Since 2001, I have been avoiding reading the Alberta Rules of Court with the excuse that it was soon going to change.

The new Alberta Rules of Court will be implemented on November 1, 2010.

The Rules of Court as published by Alberta Queen's Printer are available for free download in PDF format: Volume 1 - Alberta Rules of Court AR 124/2010 at 692 pages and Volume 2 - Alberta Rules of Court Supplemental Information at 506 pages.

The Conditional Order was an order for payment and Master Schlosser pointed out that the Judicature Act [8], the Civil Enforcement Act [9] and the Alberta Rules of Court [10] gave the Court broad powers to vary or stay its own Orders.

In the alternative, Master Schlosser was prepared to rely on Rule 1.5 of the Alberta Rules of Court to cure the irregularity in the tenant's application and treat it as a Notice of Appeal.

While on its face, this appears to be appropriate, it does raise certain red flags when one has regard to Rule 10.52 (3) of the Alberta Rules of Court:

Notably, Master Schlosser mentioned Rule 9.15 of the Alberta Rules of Court as a provision that might apply to RTDRS Orders filed at the Court of Queen's Bench.

Whereas Master Schlosser, in Montour, implied that the Court could set aside an RTDRS order on the basis of Rule 9.15 of the Alberta Rules of Court (which allows the Court to set aside a previous order where a party did not attend by mistake or accident), Master Farrington, in Abougouche, rejected this argument, ruling that Rule 9.15 is intended to apply to decisions of Queen's Bench Masters or Justices, and not RTDRS orders.

The application for restoration is granted upon payment of a $ 200 restoration fee (see Alberta Rules of Court, Rule 14.65 (1)(b)-RRB-.

Rules 14.37 (2)(e) and 14.58 of the Alberta Rules of Court, AR 124/2010, allows an Appeal Judge to grant permission to any person to intervene; impose terms and conditions on the intervention.

Neither Transcript Management Services nor a private court reporting service is able to convert the record of proceedings before the deadline under Rule 14.16 (3)(b) of the Alberta Rules of Court.

Keywords: Appeal Restoration; Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010; Record of Proceedings; Regulated Accounting Profession Act, RSA 2000, c R - 12

-LSB-...] Rather, the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 permits individual self - representation and assistance by a «McKenzie Friend» (from McKenzie v McKenzie [1971] P 33, [1970] 3 All -LSB-...] at para 8, 348 DLR (4th) 45 interprets these provisions to mean that in - court non-lawyer representation is restricted to the support functions provided by a «McKenzie Friend».

Rules 14.37 (2) and 14.58 of the Alberta Rules of Court, AR 124/2010, provide that a single appeal judge may grant leave to a party to intervene in an appeal and impose conditions on the intervention.

A non-suit application is permitted by Rule 8.20 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, which states, «at the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant may request the Court to dismiss the action on the ground that no case has been made, without being asked to elect whether evidence will be called.»

Like EPOs, restraining orders can also be obtained ex parte in urgent circumstances, by filing an originating application with the Court of Queen's Bench or, if a proceeding has already been commenced, by filing a family application (see Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, rule 12.33 (1)-RRB-.

Justice Crighton's decision to award $ 1000 in costs to the respondent can not be fully explained either by reference to the Alberta Rules of Court or to case law in Alberta and New Brunswick.

Rule 1.2 (1) of the Alberta Rules of Court states: «The purpose of these Rules is to provide a means by which claims can be fairly and justly resolved in or by a court process in a timely and cost effective way».

Given that parts of Mr. Voisey's claim were legitimate, the higher costs award may be due to the aspects of his conduct that were objectionable under the Alberta Rules of Court.

However, it is important to note that Justice Crighton's decision did not only follow the Alberta Rules of Court, but also relied on Alberta precedent for awarding costs against an unsuccessful self - represented habeas corpus applicant.

The Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 direct that the successful party to an application is entitled to a costs award against the unsuccessful party (Rule 10.29 (1)-RRB-.

Although Justice Crighton applied the Alberta Rules of Court and relied on precedent in awarding costs against Mr. Voisey, the unusually high amount of costs can not be completely explained using the Rules and case law.

For example, my firm spends less money on hard copies of the Alberta Rules of Court because many lawyers access a nice current, useable, free pdf version on their personal mobile devices.

Whether it is in the Solicitor's Act in Ontario, the Law Society Rules in British Columbia or the Alberta Rules of Court, jurisdictions across Canada already require contingency fee agreements to be in writing.

Rules 28 - 30 of the Alberta Rules of Court (Vol 2) also apply.

The last issue I will discuss arises in Rule 30 of the Alberta Rules of Court.

The respondents concede that the requirements of Rule 10.52 (3)(a)(iii) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta.

A couple of days ago there was a notice about an amendment to the Alberta Rules of Court — the rules linked in the example post.

Reference should be made to the official text of the new Alberta Rules of Court, once enacted.

The Alberta Rules of Court, consolidated to September 1, 2014 are available to all via the Alberta Queen's Printer website.

Delay in action is dealt with by Rules 4.31 to 4.33 of the Alberta Rules of Court.

[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 the urging of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2014] 1 SCR 87 to the effect that courts are obliged to resolve legal disputes in the most cost - effective and timely method available, provided the process selected ensures fairness between the parties.

[See also, e.g., s. 53.03 (2.1) Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194; compare Form 25 Alberta Rules of Court, Rule 5.34] Treating physicians, on the other hand, often have crucial evidence to share and their opinions are highly valued but they sometimes struggle with the technical requirements of the rules of court.

The long awaited, new Alberta Rules of Court regulation is available.

Nonetheless, Master Robertson goes on to indicate that, if this matter had come before a Provincial Court judge, the Provincial Court judge would have authority to hear the application to set aside the order and schedule a re-hearing based on rule 9.15 of the Alberta Rules of Court, which allow the setting aside of an order made without notice or following a hearing.

Counsel for the Applicants objected to the content of these affidavits, arguing that they contained several excerpts which offended the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010 (the Rules).

Not exact matches

The Liberals are unlikely to make any final decision on drug testing until the Supreme Court of Canada rules on its legality in a case between Suncor and workers at its Alberta oil sands operation, said Troy Winters, senior health and safety officer with the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said «the whole economy would grind to a halt» if the B.C. court rules the province has the authority to regulate the flow of oil from the pipeline expansion.

The host of interveners in Chief Steve Courtoreille on behalf of himself and the members of the Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Governor General in Council, et al., now before the Supreme Court of Canada, includes the attorneys general of Quebec, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta, several Yukon First Nations, the Assembly of First Nations, the Grand Council of the Crees and Cree Nation Government, the Manitoba Métis Federation and Advocates for the Rule of Law.

A Master of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta has ruled in favour of one law firm but against another in a real estate leasing company's lawsuits against both firms, in a «legal odyssey» he compared to the great classical work by Homer.

In May, the Court of Appeal of Quebec ruled that the proposal for a Cooperative Capital Markets Regulatory System, which is to date supported by six jurisdictions — Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and the Yukon — but opposed by Quebec and Alberta, is unconstitutional.

In Alberta (Securities Commission) v. Brost, [142] the Alberta Court of Appeal considered whether the rule in Brosseau applied to AMPs.

Ian R. MacDonald, a partner and senior litigator with Field Law in Calgary, has devised a «roadmap to resolution» to help parties navigate a litigation plan under Alberta's new Rules of Court that came into force in November 2010.

On July 12, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling on Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) that, on the surface at least, appears to be a game - changer for the educational contribution of «fair dealing» in Canada's Copyright Act.

This decision upholds the December 2015 ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal in the same matters.

W. Scott Schlosser, a Master of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, has ruled Fort McMurray Today columnist Kevin Thornton must provide information about a source who provided him documents for columns he wrote about the Alberta - based firm Stringam Denecky LLP.

That irony has now been tempered by the Supreme Court's ruling Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), and in ways that bode well, in principle, for the life of intellectual property.

While the experience in different jurisdictions varies, I suspect that in Alberta (and elsewhere), few lawyers would would want to take on a case worth less than $ 50,000, especially if bound by the full - scale rules of court.