Votour v. Tucker et al.
| Jurisdiction | Alberta |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
| Judge | Veit, J. |
| Citation | [2009] A.R. Uned. 884,[2009] A.R. Uned. 884 (QB),2009 ABQB 722 |
| Date | 11 December 2009 |
| Subject Matter | PRACTICE,TORTS,EVIDENCE |
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
-
783783 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
...Canada (Minister of Agriculture), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385; 133 N.R. 345, refd to. [para. 14]. Votour v. Tucker et al., [2009] A.R. Uned. 884; 2009 ABQB 722, refd to. [para. 18]. Roitman v. Canada (2006), 353 N.R. 75; 2006 FCA 266, leave to appeal refused [2006] 2 S.C.R. xi; 362 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.......
-
Independent Power Producers' Society of Alberta v. Independent System Operator
...Review. This Court has the jurisdiction to hear from those who may be made parties, as well as from non-parties: Votour v Tucker , 2009 ABQB 722 at para 29. [21] The MSA was granted intervenor status in part because it plays a key role in the electricity market in Alberta. Further, the MSA ......
-
Condominium Corporation 052 0580 (o/a The Tradition at Southbrook) v Carrington Holdings Ltd.
...Defendant may have is hypothetical and speculative. [11] In Votour v Tucker, 2009 ABQB 722, Justice Veit examined the former Rule 384(1), which is the functional equivalent of Rule 6.3(3). Justice Veit held that as notice was an el......
3 cases
-
783783 Alberta Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., (2010) 482 A.R. 136 (CA)
...Canada (Minister of Agriculture), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385; 133 N.R. 345, refd to. [para. 14]. Votour v. Tucker et al., [2009] A.R. Uned. 884; 2009 ABQB 722, refd to. [para. 18]. Roitman v. Canada (2006), 353 N.R. 75; 2006 FCA 266, leave to appeal refused [2006] 2 S.C.R. xi; 362 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.......
-
Independent Power Producers' Society of Alberta v. Independent System Operator
...Review. This Court has the jurisdiction to hear from those who may be made parties, as well as from non-parties: Votour v Tucker , 2009 ABQB 722 at para 29. [21] The MSA was granted intervenor status in part because it plays a key role in the electricity market in Alberta. Further, the MSA ......
-
Condominium Corporation 052 0580 (o/a The Tradition at Southbrook) v Carrington Holdings Ltd.
...Defendant may have is hypothetical and speculative. [11] In Votour v Tucker, 2009 ABQB 722, Justice Veit examined the former Rule 384(1), which is the functional equivalent of Rule 6.3(3). Justice Veit held that as notice was an el......
