Sign Up for Vincent AI
Borgel v Paintearth (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2020 ABCA 321
5 cases
R v Settle,
"...for having a simplified voir dire based on submissions of counsel and not evidence: compare Borgel v Paintearth (County No. 18) SDAB, 2020 ABCA 321 at para 30, 3 Alta LR (7th) 85. All this is obiter here and mentioned only to note that the lack of a formal evidential voir dire might not nec..."
TransAlta Corporation v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2022 ABCA 37
"...application of res judicata. [13] As pointed out in Borgel v Paintearth (County No 18) SDAB, 2020 ABCA 321 at paras 45- 46, 83 Admin LR (6th) 297, the approach of an appeal or review court respecting the participation of a decision-maker (whose deci..."
Uhuegbulem v Balbi,
"...(Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2023 ABCA 98 at paras 52–53; Borgel v Paintearth (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2020 ABCA 321 at para 49; Breen v Foremost Industries Ltd, 2024 ABKB 9 at para 24; Ewashko v Hugo, 2022 ABCA 420 at para 6; H2S Solutions Ltd v Tourmaline..."
Kuipers v NEP Ltd GP Inc.,
"...that deals with these types of exclusions. In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v NOVA Chemicals Corporation, 2018 ABQB 482 ( Dow), rev'd in part, 2020 ABCA 321, Justice Romaine concluded at paragraph 1032 that: …the meaning of consequential losses is dependent upon the words of the exclusion clause,..."
McCargar v Metis Settlements General Council,
"...calculation of the amount of costs at $21,836.24: compare Borgel v Paintearth (County No 18) Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, 2020 ABCA 321 at para 30, 13 Alta LR (7th) 85; Canadian Broadcasting Corp v New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 SCR 480 at para 72; R v Peets, 2024 A..."
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialExperience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
5 cases
R v Settle,
"...for having a simplified voir dire based on submissions of counsel and not evidence: compare Borgel v Paintearth (County No. 18) SDAB, 2020 ABCA 321 at para 30, 3 Alta LR (7th) 85. All this is obiter here and mentioned only to note that the lack of a formal evidential voir dire might not nec..."
TransAlta Corporation v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2022 ABCA 37
"...application of res judicata. [13] As pointed out in Borgel v Paintearth (County No 18) SDAB, 2020 ABCA 321 at paras 45- 46, 83 Admin LR (6th) 297, the approach of an appeal or review court respecting the participation of a decision-maker (whose deci..."
Uhuegbulem v Balbi,
"...(Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2023 ABCA 98 at paras 52–53; Borgel v Paintearth (Subdivision and Development Appeal Board), 2020 ABCA 321 at para 49; Breen v Foremost Industries Ltd, 2024 ABKB 9 at para 24; Ewashko v Hugo, 2022 ABCA 420 at para 6; H2S Solutions Ltd v Tourmaline..."
Kuipers v NEP Ltd GP Inc.,
"...that deals with these types of exclusions. In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v NOVA Chemicals Corporation, 2018 ABQB 482 ( Dow), rev'd in part, 2020 ABCA 321, Justice Romaine concluded at paragraph 1032 that: …the meaning of consequential losses is dependent upon the words of the exclusion clause,..."
McCargar v Metis Settlements General Council,
"...calculation of the amount of costs at $21,836.24: compare Borgel v Paintearth (County No 18) Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, 2020 ABCA 321 at para 30, 13 Alta LR (7th) 85; Canadian Broadcasting Corp v New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 3 SCR 480 at para 72; R v Peets, 2024 A..."
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting