United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 v Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABCA 130

Posted on by

This is an appeal of a decision that United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 acted contrary to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) by collecting images of individuals crossing the picket line, with plans to publish them on the Internet. The Union argued that these activities were subject to the journalistic exception in PIPA. Alternatively, they argued that PIPA impugned the Charter protected right to freedom of expression. The Court of Appeal states:

“[79] The Adjudicator’s interpretation of the Act, and the order she granted interfered with the union’s Charter rights. The chambers judge attempted to remedy that breach by providing expansive and somewhat artificial interpretations on some of the terms used in the Act, and by declaring other portions of the Act inoperative.

[80] The particular problem that arises in this appeal could be remedied in any one of a number of ways. Striking out or reading down portions of the statute are not attractive options. The courts have neither the institutional nor the legislative ability to rewrite the Act. It is possible that all of the impugned provisions of the Act might have a constitutional application in some cases, so long as protected rights are not engaged. There is no obvious way to prune this statute so as to make it constitutional. Artificially expanding the meaning of “journalism” is not a helpful solution.

[81] The appropriate remedy in this case is, therefore, not to strike down any portion of the statute. A declaration should issue that the application of the Act to the activities of the union was unconstitutional, because it infringed on the union’s Charter rights. The order of the Adjudicator should be quashed. It is within the particular mandate of the Legislature to decide what amendments are required to the Act in order to bring it in line with the Charter.”

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 v Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABCA 130

Calgary (City) v. Canada, 2012 SCC 20

Posted on by

On appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal.

Taxation ― Goods and services tax ― Single supply or multiple supplies ― City acquiring and constructing transit facilities ― City claiming and receiving public service body rebates for portion of GST paid ― City also claiming input tax credits in respect of GST paid on purchases made for transit facilities ― Whether acquisition and construction of transit facilities constituting an exempt supply, a taxable supply or both ― Whether “transit facilities services” a taxable supply to the Province separate from exempt supply of “public transit services” to public ― City Transportation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C‑14 ― Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E‑15, ss. 123(1), 169(1), Sched. V, Part VI, ss. 1 and 24.

The City of Calgary acquired and constructed transit infrastructure, facilities, and equipment for the use of the Calgary public as part of the municipal transit system pursuant to the City Transportation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C‑14 (“CTA”). Under the CTA, the Province of Alberta entered into funding agreements with the City. The City paid GST in respect of its purchases for the acquisition and construction of the transit facilities. The provision of a “municipal transit service” is an exempt supply under the terms of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E‑15 (“ETA”). Input tax credits (“ITCs”) cannot be claimed with respect to purchases made for the purpose of providing an exempt supply. Prior to 2003, the City claimed public service body rebates for 57.14% of the GST paid. In January 2003, the City filed a GST return in which it claimed ITCs for the difference between the GST paid for the transit facilities and the rebates that the City had previously received. The Minister of National Revenue rejected the City’s position denying the City’s claim for ITCs; the Tax Court of Canada agreed with the City, allowing the appeal and remitted the matter to the Minister for reassessment. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Minister’s appeal.

Held : Dismissed, with costs.

Calgary (City) v. Canada, 2012 SCC 20

Notice – Online Catalogue and Website Unavailable April 28-29

Posted on by

Alberta Law Libraries’ website and online catalogue will be unavailable on Saturday, April 28th and Sunday, April 29th due to scheduled maintenance.

Alberta Law Libraries (Edmonton) and (Calgary) will be open regular weekend hours. However, the Libraries’ website, the Libraries’ online catalogue, and the internet will be unavailable in the libraries.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

Morris v. Condominium Corporation No. 074 0215, 2012 ABQB 265

Posted on by

Condominium Property Act, R.S.A. 2000 c. C-22, s. 67 – Court ordered remedy – Improper behaviour under the Act – Investigator appointed

A successful application for a court ordered remedy under s. 67(2)(a) of the Condominium Property Act, appointment of an investigator.

“[8] … In my view, there appears to be ample evidence of “improper conduct” as defined by section 67 (1) (a) arising from the noncompliance of the Act, and bylaws by the Condo Corp. In making this determination, I have not determined nor must I determine that the misconduct is otherwise malafides but only that the actions caused the result constituting improper conduct as defined by the Act.

[9] Under the circumstances, I conclude that this is not only appropriate but a classic case for the appointment of an investigator. Despite arguments of counsel for the Condo Corp., I am of the view that litigation of the concerns expressed by Morris is both a costly and inefficient manner in which to achieve the ultimate goal of a properly functioning Condo Corp.”

Morris v. Condominium Corporation No. 074 0215, 2012 ABQB 265

Bill C-37, Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act – Introduced April 24, 2012

Posted on by

Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, was introduced on April 24, 2012.  This Act may be cited as the Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act . 

“The amendment will make convicted offenders more accountable to victims of crime by doubling the victim surcharge that offenders must pay, and ensuring that the surcharge is automatically applied in all cases.” (Department of Justice News Release, April 24, 2012)

For more details, please click on the following links: 

Text of Bill C-37
Information about Bill C-37
News Release (April 24, 2012)
Backgrounder (April 2012)