Stay Current

Changes to Court and Transcript Fees

Effective May 12, changes to court fees were applied to several Court matters, including filing fees for civil, family, surrogate, search fees, and court transcripts. To get a full list of the changes, please see the following regulations: 

You can view the May 12, 2025 news release here

R v Tillapaugh, 2025 ABCA 172

[1] The appellant, Matthias Tillapaugh, was convicted of Occupying a Motor Vehicle While Knowing Certain Listed Firearms Are in the Motor Vehicle, contrary to section 94(1) of the Criminal Code. The main issue at trial was whether the appellant, who was sitting in the passenger seat of a Dodge Journey SUV, had knowledge of the firearm found in clear view on the floor of the passenger seat, after the appellant had exited the SUV. The SUV had three passengers, however, the trial judge found that the circumstantial evidence proved that the appellant had knowledge that the firearm was in the SUV.

Continue reading “R v Tillapaugh, 2025 ABCA 172”

Alberta Energy v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2025 ABCA 163

[1] The appeal was allowed with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

[2] This appeal involves interpretation of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIPP). On July 3, 2020, a FOIPP request was made to Alberta Energy for disclosure of records relating to the rescission of a coal policy. Alberta Energy asserted that some of the records it held were “nonresponsive” or in other words, not relevant to the specific request. The Information and Privacy Commissioner’s Adjudicator disagreed: Order F2022-20. An application for judicial review of that decision was dismissed: Alberta Energy v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2024 ABKB 198, 68 Alta LR (7th) 204.

Continue reading “Alberta Energy v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2025 ABCA 163”

R v Breitkreutz, 2025 ABCA 165

[1] After a two-week trial before a judge sitting without a jury, the appellant was convicted of fraud over $5,000 contrary to s 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46: R v Breitkreutz, 2022 ABQB 449 (Trial Decision).[1] The trial judge concluded that the appellant and his company, Base Finance Ltd, defrauded investors by leading them to believe their money was invested in loans secured by first mortgages on Alberta real estate when, in fact, their money was invested in risky oil and gas investments in Texas. The trial judge found that the appellant’s deceit caused the investors losses totalling tens of millions of dollars. The court sentenced the appellant to 10 years in prison and ordered him to pay $3,100,568 in restitution to his victims: R v Breitkreutz, 2022 ABQB 559.

Continue reading “R v Breitkreutz, 2025 ABCA 165”