Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo
I suspect that this is the case 209 is referring to.
With a cursory read, it appears that the government agents made some mistakes in process that ended up biting them. I don't see how this is precedent making. There sure seems to be current and Valid legislation for the government to make such decisions.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...&resultIndex=1
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta
Citation: Cooper v. Ganter, 2012 ABQB 695
Date:20121123 Docket: 0713 11300 Registry: Fort McMurray
Between:
Gary Cooper and Marvin Boucher Plaintiffs
- and -
Brenda Ganter as Personal Representative of Bertha Ganter, deceased,
Stephen Ganter, and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta Defendants
From the decision.
"[35] I note I have some discretion under Rule 1.5(1) to convert the Amended Statement of Claim to an originating application for judicial review. I decline to exercise this discretion as there was no application by the Plaintiffs for such relief. Further to do so would circumvent the operation of the six month limitation period for judicial review under Rule 3.15. With respect to the Crown the Plaintiffs are not seeking a broad interpretation of their legal position (declaratory relief) but rather in essence they seek to challenge and set aside the Crown’s administrative decision.
[36] The Crown has met the high onus of establishing there is no merit to the Plaintiffs’ claims against it. There are no genuine issues for trial in the Plaintiffs’ action commenced by Statement of Claim against the Crown and their claim has no reasonable prospect of success in its present nature and form against the Crown." |
I think the one 209 is referring to is a trapline that was seized by rev Canada in a bankruptcy . the line was then put in an sealed bid auction and was sold to a guy who had never held a trapping licence (not resident licence or a junior or a senior permit holder licence) . He also never took the course before the auction . the three top bids were 20 000.00, 40 000.00, and 177 000.00. the whole deal was bad but the court approved it.
If this does set a precedent than so does every sale of a trapline that sold for cash. Problem is the government has the right to change the law. But I thought it had to go through the legislative house. Does any one know if it did go through the legislature??
a better precedent would be why oil leases can still be bought and sold to the highest bidder but a trapping lease cannot. A lumber lease can still be bought and sold why not a trapping lease. a gravel pit on crown land can still be bought and sold why not a trapping lease. Same with natural gas . same with gold leases. we are being singled out for sure.