Alberta Law Libraries will be closed for the Easter Holiday on Friday April 18 and Monday April 21, 2025.
Stay Current
Stoney v Easton, 2025 ABCA 130
[1] The appellant husband, Cory Easton, appeals an interim spousal support order made in morning chambers.
Continue reading “Stoney v Easton, 2025 ABCA 130”
R v Cardinal, 2025 ABCA 128
[1] Shortly after midnight on December 26, 2022, the complainant JH called 911 and reported that someone was in her home with a gun, a person she later identified as the appellant Preston Cardinal. She told the 911 operator that the appellant was “taking stuff” from her apartment, had pulled out his gun to try “to keep [her] in the apartment”, and had threatened to shoot her.
Continue reading “R v Cardinal, 2025 ABCA 128”
Mikisew Cree First Nation v Rath & Company, 2025 ABCA 127
[1] This appeal arises out of a dispute regarding the enforceability of two contingency fee agreements (the CFAs) between Mikisew Cree First Nation (Mikisew) and the respondents (collectively, Rath). Mikisew and Rath entered into the CFAs at some point in 2019 and 2020; the exact timing and details regarding the execution of these agreements were disputed in the court below. Mikisew filed for a review of the CFAs under rule 10.41 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010. The review officer referred several issues related to the enforceability of the CFAs to the court under rule 10.18.
[2] In Mikisew Cree First Nation v Rath, 2023 ABKB 321 (the Decision), the chambers judge found that various rules related to the drafting and execution of the CFAs in rules 10.7(1) and 10.7(2) had been complied with: Decision at paras 96-110. Further, while there were some technical errors or irregularities in the process of signing and serving the CFAs, there was no prejudice to Mikisew and therefore, these errors and irregularities did not amount to noncompliance with rules 10.7(3) and 10.7(4). As a result, the chambers judge concluded the CFAs were enforceable. Mikisew appeals.
[3] For the reasons below, we allow the appeal.
Continue reading “Mikisew Cree First Nation v Rath & Company, 2025 ABCA 127”
Osadchuk v Kidd, 2025 ABCA 125
[1] This matter involves two appeals, a cross-appeal, and a preliminary procedural issue. There is an appeal and cross-appeal of portions of a chambers judge’s substantive decision, on appeal from an applications judge, on service of a claim out of the jurisdiction, and an appeal from the chambers judge’s decision on costs.
Continue reading “Osadchuk v Kidd, 2025 ABCA 125”