ARCTIC OBITER
Arctic Obiter - May 2010 - Law Society of the Northwest Territories
Arctic Obiter - May 2010 - Law Society of the Northwest Territories
- No tags were found...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
14 | <strong>ARCTIC</strong> <strong>OBITER</strong><br />
NWT DECISION DIGEST<br />
COURT OF APPEAL<br />
Lafferty v. Tlicho Government<br />
2010 NWTCA 4<br />
The Honourable Mr. Justice Peter Costigan<br />
The Honourable Madam Justice Marina Paperny<br />
The Honourable Madam Justice Patricia<br />
Rowbotham<br />
Counsel for the Respondent (Appellant): R. S.<br />
Maurice<br />
Counsel for the Applicant (Respondent): A. Pape<br />
The Respondent applied to dismiss the<br />
appeal on the ground that it has become<br />
moot. The issue was the constitutional<br />
validity of the Future Chiefs Executive<br />
Council Meetings Law, 2007, relative to<br />
the Tlicho Constitution.<br />
Finding: Appeal dismissed. "The<br />
appeal is moot… As the impugned law<br />
has ceased to exist, there is no longer a<br />
live controversy between the<br />
parties…." (at para. 9) "Should a<br />
challenge to the constitutionality of<br />
some future law arise, that challenge<br />
will have to be considered on its own<br />
facts. Damage to reputation is<br />
irrelevant to the issues raised in this<br />
constitutional challenge. … there is no<br />
public interest to be served by hearing<br />
the appeal." (at para. 11)<br />
CASES CITED<br />
Lafferty v. Tlicho Government, 2009 NWTSC 35,<br />
[2009] 3 C.N.L.R. 141<br />
Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1<br />
S.C.R. 342, 57 D.L.R. (4th) 231<br />
R. v. McPherson<br />
2010 NWTCA 3<br />
The Honourable Mr. Justice Peter Costigan<br />
The Honourable Madam Justice Marina Paperny<br />
The Honourable Madam Justice Patricia<br />
Rowbotham<br />
Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant: B. Latham<br />
Counsel for the Respondent: B. Nordin<br />
Applicant for a second appeal pursuant<br />
to s. 684 of the Criminal Code.<br />
Application denied. "In our view the<br />
applicant has not made a clear and<br />
compelling case that would justify the<br />
exercise of our discretion to re-open the<br />
appeal.<br />
Finality in this case is<br />
determinative. McPherson is seeking to<br />
take advantage of a clarification in the<br />
law that occurred five years after his<br />
designation as a dangerous offender<br />
and three years after the dismissal of his<br />
appeal." (at para. 7)<br />
CASES CITED<br />
R. v. Johnson, 2003 SCC 46, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 357<br />
R. v. Francis, 2008 ABCA 407, 446 A.R. 200 at<br />
para. 23<br />
R. v. Hummel, 2003 YKCA 4, 174 C.C.C. (3d) 1<br />
R. v. Brown, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 918, 105 D.L.R. (4th)<br />
199<br />
R. v. Rhingo, [1997] O.J. No. 1110, 115 C.C.C. (3d)<br />
89<br />
R. v. Gargan<br />
2010 NWTCA 5<br />
Publication ban: no information may be<br />
published that may identify the complainant,<br />
and no information may be published on the<br />
contents of the application for the publication<br />
ban.<br />
The Honourable Madam Justice Carole Conrad<br />
The Honourable Mr. Justice Peter martin<br />
The Honourable Mr. Justice J. D. Bruce<br />
McDonald<br />
Appellant represented himself<br />
Counsel for the Respondent Crown: B. Nordin<br />
Application for counsel.<br />
Application<br />
granted: "… we are of the opinion that<br />
counsel should be appointed at this<br />
time for the limited purpose of<br />
reviewing the matter and reporting to<br />
The Canadian Legal Information Institute<br />
Making Canadian law accessible for<br />
free on the internet.<br />
www.canlii.org<br />
the court as to whether there is a viable<br />
ground of appeal."<br />
SUPREME COURT OF<br />
THE NORTHWEST<br />
TERRITORIES<br />
CIVIL<br />
Lawson v. Jackson<br />
2010 NWTSC 32<br />
Justice L .A. Charbonneau<br />
Counsel for the Applicant: K. Winton<br />
No one appeared for the Respondent<br />
Application to vary an Order of the<br />
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench made<br />
on September 20, 2001, for child<br />
support, retroactivity, and quantifying<br />
section 7 expenses so that NWT's MEP<br />
office could enforce. The only evidence<br />
of the Respondent's earnings is from a<br />
2005 T4. Despite an order to do so, the<br />
Respondent failed to produce proof of<br />
earnings.<br />
"His failure to disclose<br />
financial information is blameworthy<br />
conduct that militates in favour of a<br />
retroactive award." Decision: imputed<br />
annual income based on the T4, ordered<br />
payment of section 7 quantified<br />
expenses, and made both orders<br />
retroactive to January 1, 2006.<br />
CASES CITED<br />
D.B.S. v. S.R.G..; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry;<br />
Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231<br />
MacGregor v. Munroe<br />
2010 NWTSC 30<br />
Justice V.A. Schuler<br />
Counsel for the Designated Authority: E.<br />
Delaney<br />
No one appeared for the Applicant<br />
The Respondent appeared on her own behalf<br />
Application pursuant to Part 3 of the<br />
Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act to<br />
lower child support from $700 per