Neilson v Leduc (County)
| Jurisdiction | Alberta |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
| Judge | Honourable Mr. Justice T.G. Rothwell |
| Neutral Citation | 2021 ABQB 735 |
| Citation | 2021 ABQB 735 |
| Docket Number | 2003 19360 |
| Date | 14 September 2021 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
3 practice notes
-
Kneehill County v Risler
...SCC refused, 35515 (19 December 2013); Mammoet 13220 - 33 Street NE Limited v Edmonton (City), 2014 ABCA 155; Neilson v Leduc (County), 2021 ABQB 735. In these circumstances, I find that the tripartite test is inapplicable here; a similar result was reached in Radomsky at paras 77 Under sec......
-
WW v Alberta (Human Rights Tribunal)
...Alberta (Labour Relations Board), 2018 ABQB 431 at para 13; Boll v Woodlands County, 2021 ABQB 406 at para 68; Neilson v Leduc (County), 2021 ABQB 735 at paras 26-27. [8] The words “directly affected” in Rule 3.15(3)(c) must be given their ordinary meaning, applied to the part......
-
Julien v Alberta (Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation)
...Alberta (Labour Relations Board), 2018 ABQB 431 at para 13; Boll v Woodlands County, 2021 ABQB 406 at para 68; Neilson v Leduc (County), 2021 ABQB 735 at paras 7 The central question on this appeal, therefore, is whether Mr. Julien's employer is “directly affected” by the......
5 cases
-
Kneehill County v Risler
...SCC refused, 35515 (19 December 2013); Mammoet 13220 - 33 Street NE Limited v Edmonton (City), 2014 ABCA 155; Neilson v Leduc (County), 2021 ABQB 735. In these circumstances, I find that the tripartite test is inapplicable here; a similar result was reached in Radomsky at paras [77] Under s......
-
Tsuu T'ina Gaming Limited Partnership v Alberta (Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Commission)
...r 3.15(2) precludes the claim being advanced after the expiration of the 6-month limitation period: see also Neilson v Leduc (County), 2021 ABQB 735 at paras [24] There are two facets to the Applicants’ challenge regarding Play Alberta. First, they allege that the Commission has no jurisdic......
-
Hayden v. Alberta (Workers' Compensation Board)
...ABQB 431 at para 13; Boll v Woodlands County, 2021 ABQB 406 at para 68; Neilson v Leduc (County), 2021 ABQB 735 at paras 26-27. It is consequently difficult to discern any basis upon which a panel of this Court would interfere with the chamb......
-
Julien v Alberta (Appeals Commission for Alberta Workers' Compensation)
...Alberta (Labour Relations Board), 2018 ABQB 431 at para 13; Boll v Woodlands County, 2021 ABQB 406 at para 68; Neilson v Leduc (County), 2021 ABQB 735 at paras [7] The central question on this appeal, therefore, is whether Mr. Julien’s employer is “directly affected” by the application for ......
Get Started for Free
