Welcome to Tarrabain & Company’s virtual office. Our website, or our virtual office as we like to call it, will provide you with a vast amount of information about our firm. From the type of law that we practice, our lawyer’s profiles, to answers for commonly asked questions. We hope that your stay is enjoyable as well as informative and that you contact us with any further questions.

  
  We practice
Criminal Law
Our lawyers are committed to the effective representation of an individual's rights within the Criminal Justice System. We are experienced trial lawyers in the areas of narcotics offences, violent crimes, impaired offences, and provide appellate(appeal) services for all conviction and sentence matters.
Personal Injury
Our personal injury members are experienced litigation lawyers dedicated to assisting individuals during the stressful aftermath of a motor vehicle collision or other traumatic injury. We assist our clients with the resolution of their claims, providing them with strong representation. We represent our clients in these matters on a contingency basis. Please contact us for details.
Civil Litigation
We assist individuals, either plaintiff or defendant, with general areas of civil litigation.
Family Law
At a very trying and difficult time, there are many questions surrounding familial issues. It is essential that you know your rights and obligations arising out of marriage, cohabitation, and separation and be advised how to proceed to enforce those rights, meet your obligations, and be protected.
Real Estate
Our Real Estate lawyers offer assistance and representation with residential and small business real estate purchase and sale transactions.
Corporate Services
Our Corporate Lawyers handle incorporation and general Corporate matters.
Wills and Estates
The Wills and Estates lawyers offer assistance to clients in the drafting of wills, probate of estates, drafting personal directives, and powers of attorney.
  
  Alberta Criminal Judgments
Thursday, December 17, 2009

On December 17, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Plaintiffs' Leave to Appeal application in the case of Morrow v. Zhang, 2009 ABCA 215.  This ruling means that the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision with respect to the Constitutionality of the Minor Injury Regulation is upheld.  Therefore, the law in Alberta is that general damages for minor soft tissue injuries of individuals involved in motor vehicle accidents will be limited to a maximum of $4,500.00 unless there are other types of injuries also present


Friday, June 12, 2009

 

In Morrow v. Zhang, 2009 ABCA 215, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s ruling that the Minor Injury Regulation, AR 123/2004 (the "MIR") was unconstitutional. In its decision , the Court addressed three issues:

1) Whether the MIR violated s. 15 of the Charter relating to whether minor injury victims were being discriminated against under the MIR;

2) Whether the MIR violated s. 7 of the Charter relating to whether the MIR offended the principles of fundamental justice; and

3) Whether the MIR would be saved and justified under s. 1 of the Charter in the event the MIR violated Charter.

Issue #1 - The Section 15 Analysis

Although deferring to the trial judge’s finding that soft tissue injury claimants suffered from stereotypes, the Court held that the trial judge erred in law in assessing the perpetuation of the stereotype in his s. 15 analysis, particularly because the trial judge failed to consider the MIR in conjunction with the DTPR. Rather, the Court found that the DTPR promotes and assists treatment of soft tissue injury claimants. Further, the Court held that both the MIR and DTPR, when considered together, "provides for an individual process, which recognizes the reality of the claimant’s injuries." Therefore, the legislation was not discriminatory.

The Court also recognized that other jurisdictions had placed a limit on damages for pain and suffering in finding that the legislation was not discriminatory under s. 15 of the Charter.

Issue #2 - Section 7

The Respondents submitted a cross-appeal on the basis that the legislation infringed the s. 7 rights of the Plaintiffs. The Respondents submitted that the legislation violates "their physical and psychological security by directing certain medical treatments" under the legislation.

In dismissing the cross-appeal, the Court, in agreeing with the trial judge, held that the MIR does not coerce any treatment measures as well as any failure to adhere to the DTPR would merely result in financial consequences, which was not of such severity as affecting the fundamental security of the person. Rather, the legislation allows for flexibility in treatment as well as maintaining the discretion of a claimant’s health care practitioner in treating the claimant.

Issue #3 - Section 1

The Court did not engage in a s. 1 Oakes analysis as the Court did not find any breach of Charter rights.



  

Contact Our Lawyers

Sid Tarrabain Greg Lintz Sharon Tarrabain Senia Tarrabain Lynn Rideout Sarah lanceley Adam Karbani
Sid Tarrabain Greg Lintz Sharon Tarrabain Kathy Tarrabain Walter Raponi Senia Tarrabain Ali Moughel Lynn Rideout Sarah Lanceley Adam Karbani