Posts Tagged ‘Alberta’

Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Highland Consulting Group: A Reply to Ted Folkman

January 21, 2013

My blawging colleague, Ted Folkman over at Letters Blogatory has an informative post about Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Highland Consulting Group, Inc. (D. Md. 2013) a recent Maryland District Court decision dealing with service of process under the Hague Service Convention [“Syncrude”].

In Syncrude, the Plaintiff, Syncrude Canada Ltd. (“Syncrude”  or “Plaintiff”) brought an action pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Foreign  Money-Judgment Recognition Act, Maryland  Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, §§ 10-701  et seq. (“the Recognition Act”) against  Defendants The Highland Consulting Group Inc. (“HCG”), High Energy Consultants, Inc. (“HEC”), and The Highland Group International GmbH (“HGI”) (collectively “the Highland Defendants”).

On July 26, 2011, Syncrude filed a breach of contract action against the Highland Defendants in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Case Number 1103 1134 (“Canadian Litigation”).  The Highland Defendants were served via registered mail at their respective principal offices pursuant to the Alberta Rules of Court and the Alberta Business Corporation Act.   Bittner signed the return receipts acknowledging service for both Maryland Defendants on August 2, 2011. Raz Walter signed a return receipt on behalf of Highland Group International GmbH on August 3, 2011. (more…)

Cut-and-Paste Justice

November 20, 2012

I previously blogged about Cojocaru (Guardian Ad Litem) v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Center2011 BCCA 192,  where the British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered a new trial and overturned a five million dollar judgment awarded to an infant plaintiff who suffered brain damage during his birth at the BC Women’s Hospital and Health Care Center. The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently granted leave to appeal and the Court’s decision is under reserve following oral arguments on November 13, 2012.

The issues before the Court in Cojocaru are:

If a trial judge adopts the submissions of only one party into his or her reasons for judgment, is the presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality so fundamentally displaced so as to render the trial unfair (or a nullity) in the absence of cogent evidence of bias?

Whether the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to conduct an independent assessment of the evidence and in failing to consider the respondents’ causation defence.

Is this an isolated incident or is there a judicial trend toward “cut-and-paste justice”? (more…)

SHN Grundstuecksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH & Co. Seniorenresidenz Hoppegarten-Neuenhagen KG v. Hanne

October 30, 2012

I briefly blogged about the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in  Grundstuecksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH v. Hanne last year, mostly because I found the style of cause amusingly long.

If you think that’s a tongue-twister, check out the subsequent decision in SHN Grundstuecksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH & Co. Seniorenresidenz Hoppegarten-Neuenhagen KG v. Hanne, 2012 ABQB 624 (CanLII).

Incidentally, Madam Justice Erb of the Alberta Queen’s Bench ultimately rejected the defendant, Dr. Hanne’s impeachment defences of fraud, natural justice and public policy and held that the German judgment was enforceable in Alberta:

“In this summary trial, the Plaintiff SHN Grundstuecksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH & Co. Seniorenresidenz Hoppegarten-Neuenhagen KG, also known as SHN Grundstücksverwaltungsgesellschaft MBH & Co. Seniorenresidenz Hoppegarten-Neuenhagen KG (“SHN”) seeks an Order for recognition and enforcement in Alberta of a judgment issued by the Berlin Regional Court of Germany against the Defendant Dr. Juergen Hanne, also known as Dr. Jürgen Hanne (“Dr. Hanne”).

[98]           I find that this action is appropriate for summary trial; viva voce evidence was not required for the proper hearing of the issues and the test for enforcement of foreign judgments in Alberta has been satisfied and the defences raised by Dr. Hanne are without merit.


[99]           Accordingly, there will be an Order recognizing and enforcing the German judgment in Alberta in the total amount of the Canadian equivalent of —1,056,800.25 and interest thereon which includes:

(i) Judgment of the German Regional Court, dated November 11, 2002, for —1,022,583.70 plus interest;

(ii) the order for costs of the German Regional Court, dated November 29, 2002 (and the subsequent order for correction dated January 13, 2003) in the amount of  —21,582.25 and interest thereon; and

(iii) Costs Decision of the German Appeal Court, dated September 26, 2006, for —12, 634.30 and interest thereon.”

[100]      If the parties cannot agree with respect to the calculation of interest, they may seek an order within 30 days. Costs may be spoken to if necessary.

 And now…for a musical interlude….Tongue Tied by GroupLove:

An Open Letter to Alberta Premier Alison Redford

October 5, 2012
English: Alison Redford

English: Alison Redford (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Honourable Alison Merrilla Redford, Q.C., MLA,
Premier of Alberta
Office of the Premier Room 307,
Legislature Building
10800-97 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
T5K 2B7

Dear Premier:

I read with an abiding interest a news story by Calgary Herald reporter Darcy Henton dated October 4, 2012 entitled ” Redford defends compensation for law society dues“. Henton writes:

Premier Alison Redford says it is “entirely appropriate” for her to bill taxpayers for her Law Society of Alberta membership dues, but lawyers who serve as opposition MLAs called the practice “ridiculous” and “a gross misuse of taxpayers’ dollars.”

Redford told reporters at a Chamber of Commerce conference at Enoch’s River Cree Resort that it is the practice of the Alberta government to pay the professional membership fees for “people that are practising professions.”

“I am a member of the Law Society in good standing,” she said.

“As justice minister I was the chief legal adviser for the province. I think it was entirely appropriate.”

She said that didn’t change when she became premier.

“From my perspective, it’s part of my professional standing,” she said.

“It’s one of the things I stand forward with and say, that I am proud of the fact I am a member of a profession with a great deal of integrity. It is part of what has been government policy.”

By way of background, I am a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, admitted to the Ontario bar in 1993.

The purpose of this letter is to highlight what I consider, on your part, to be a fundamental misunderstanding of your role as an elected public official, who also happens to be a lawyer. (more…)

%d bloggers like this: