Friday, July 28, 2017

Condo rule changes in the works for Alberta


WATCH ABOVE: More people are living in condos and Alberta is making changes to make that living easier. From bitter disputes between owners and property managers to special repair fees, there are many challenges. Vinesh Pratap reports.
A A
The slow, bureaucratic process of making changes to the province’s condo act is underway.
“I’ve heard some heartbreaking stories of bullying and harassment,” Service Alberta Minister Stephanie McLean said. “I’ve heard stories of extreme financial loss.”
McLean spoke with Global News hours before an open house took place in Edmonton to gather feedback.
“We want to ensure that condos are a good option for Albertans,” McLean said.

READ MORE: Province hopes new act will improve condominium living in Alberta
In late 2014, the legislature passed changes to the condo act. Now, the focus is on developing new regulations for the amendments.
“It has been disappointing, though, the length of time it has taken to move these amendments into law,” said Edmonton lawyer Robert Noce, with the firm Miller Thomson.
Noce is paying close attention to see how the regulations develop.
As part of the changes, a dispute tribunal process is on the table as an alternative to the court system to deal with disputes.
“Many people cannot afford to litigate or deal with a particular issue in their building and so the issue never gets resolved,” Noce explained.
“There’s certainly no end of problems at the moment,” McLean said.
It’s estimated about one in four Albertans lives in a condo; a number expected to increase with a focus to grow up instead of out.
READ MORE: Bill aims for more condo owner protection: Alberta government
“There’s definitely a disconnect between potential purchasers and condos and fear in the marketplace about what condo life can be like,” McLean said. “I want to get rid of that.”
The changes are expected to be brought into place in 2018.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Alberta lawyer potentially faces costs

Written by Alex Robinson Friday, 14 July 2017

An Alberta judge has ordered a lawyer to explain why she should not be held personally responsible for costs against her client after advancing a “futile application” on his behalf.  Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Denny Thomas is considering potential costs personally against Priscilla Kennedy, of DLA Piper (Canada) LLP, for advancing litigation that is “abusive and vexatious nature” and could potentially be a “serious abuse” of the judicial system  Kennedy’s client, Maurice Stoney, brought an application in 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 to be added as a beneficiary of a trust set up for members of the Sawridge Band along with 10 other brothers and sisters. Stoney is the son of parents who had been members of the Sawridge First Nation at one point, but gave up their status for an enfranchisement payment. Thomas found that the courts had already decided the issue in Stoney v. Sawridge First Nation and that Stoney’s argument had already been rejected.

Thomas noted that Stoney did not pursue all available appeals in the earlier proceedings, but he cannot now “attempt to slip into the Sawridge Band and 1985 Sawridge Trust beneficiaries pool ‘though the backdoor’.”“…This application is a collateral attack which attempts to subvert an unappealed and crystallized judgment of a Canadian court which has already addressed and rejected the applicant’s claims and arguments,” Thomas said.“This is serious misconduct, which will have costs implications for Maurice Stoney and also potentially his lawyer Priscilla Kennedy.”

Paul Paton, the Dean of Law at the University of Alberta, says that while this is an interim decision, the judge is sending a clear signal as to what the courts’ expectations are for lawyers’ conduct. “Lawyers play a critically important role in the administration of justice and are often caught between a rock and a hard place,” Paton says.“You’ve got your responsibilities to your client and you’ve got your responsibilities to the court." Paton says that costs are rarely awarded against lawyers personally and that this decision shows courts are looking to take control of their process.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld costs awarded against a criminal defence lawyer personally in Quebec (Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v. Jodoin.  Whether or not Kennedy will avoid costs could largely hinge on whether she is able to argue that something new was being litigated in this proceeding, Paton says. “It’s got to be anchored in the good faith argument that there actually was a case to be made here and that’s where… there is a bit of back and forth about which previous decisions either apply or bind the court,” Paton says.

Another issue that could affect the outcome is the fact that Thomas had limited the scope of the application to Stoney alone, as there was no evidence before him that the “10 living brothers or sisters” named had taken any steps to be involved in the litigation.

While Thomas found that Stoney’s application had no merit and was “abusive in a manner that exhibits the hallmark characteristic of vexatious litigation,” Stoney has not been declared a vexatious litigant yet. Thomas will determine that at a later date, and he has invited Stoney to make written submissions by Aug. 4 as to whether his access to courts should be restricted.

In the meantime, Thomas has prohibited Stoney from filing any material in Alberta courts without the permission of the chief justice, associate chief justice or chief judge.  Paton says it is too early to say whether this matter could create a chill on lawyers accepting difficult cases, but that lawyers should pay close attention to the proceedings. “It’s a stay tuned message, but with some really important signals for lawyers and the bar,” he says. Kennedy, who did not respond to requests for comment, is set to appear before the court to make her submissions on July 28.  Doris Bonora, one of the lawyers representing the trustees of the trust set up for the members of the Sawridge Band, did not respond to requests for comment.