36778   Ad Hoc Group of Bondholders v. Ernst & Young Inc. in its capacity as Monitor et al.

(ON)

Commercial law – Bankruptcy and insolvency – Interest

36728    Enmax Power Corporation, Altalink Management Ltd., in its capacity as general partner of Altalink, L.P., EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. v. Alberta Utilities Commission, Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate of Alberta

- and between -

FortisAlberta Inc., Altagas Utilities Inc., ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd., ATCO Electric Ltd. v. Alberta Utilities Commission, Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate of Alberta

36238 Her Majesty the Queen v. Erin Lee MacDonald (Charter of Rights – Mandatory minimum sentences – Cruel and unusual punishment – Criminal law – Sentencing)

36153 Ryan Glenn Ziegler v. Her Majesty the Queen (Criminal law – Dangerous offender)

35888 R.V. v. R.P.  (Family law – custody)

A recent unpublished decision, Strunck v. Figueroa, serves as a not-so-gentle reminder that sometimes an enforcement application can be “too little, too late,” and that it is imperative to be proactive to protect your rights under a divorce decree or agreement, especially when your adversary acts in bad faith. In Strunck, a 2011 divorce decree awarded the plaintiff $23,369, which was to be transferred from the defendant’s retirement account. Before the plaintiff could act to collect the $23,369, however, the defendant withdrew the money from the retirement account.