16.09.2015 Views

ARCTIC OBITER

Arctic Obiter - May 2010 - Law Society of the Northwest Territories

Arctic Obiter - May 2010 - Law Society of the Northwest Territories

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • 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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!