Kristen MacDonald

Kristen has represented rail carriers in litigation and commercial arbitrations, regulatory proceedings before the Canadian Transportation Agency and the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada, final offer arbitrations and service level arbitrations conducted pursuant to the Canada Transportation Act, and related judicial reviews and appeals before the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. Kristen also provides ongoing strategic advice to rail carriers on any commercial, regulatory, or litigation matter affecting their business.

In her commercial litigation practice, Kristen has a particular focus on disputes involving complex legal, contractual, or constitutional issues. Despite this complexity, Kristen finds practical solutions that meet her clients’ needs. She has appeared before all levels of court in Saskatchewan and has also represented clients in appeals before the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Kristen attended law school at the University of Saskatchewan, where she was awarded the Law Society of Saskatchewan Gold Medal for most distinguished graduate. Prior to joining the firm in 2012, Kristen clerked for the Honourable Mr. Justice Louis LeBel at the Supreme Court of Canada

Transportation:

• Represented rail carriers in final offer arbitrations and service level arbitrations conducted pursuant to the Canada Transportation Act
• Represented rail carriers responding to complaints filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency by shippers alleging the carrier was not fulfilling its statutory level of service obligations
• Represented a rail carrier responding to a complaint filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency by a shipper alleging the carrier’s demurrage charges and charges for other incidental services were unreasonable
• Represented rail carriers responding to applications filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency by shippers for an interswitching order
• Represented rail carriers in both review hearings and appeal hearings before the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada for alleged violations of the Railway Safety Act resulting in administrative monetary penalties
• Represented a rail carrier in litigation by a shipper seeking damages for the railway company’s breach of its statutory level of service obligations
• Represented a railway company in a commercial arbitration seeking payment from a shipper for unpaid demurrage charges and other incidental service charges

Commercial and Constitutional Litigation:

• Ituna Investment LP v Industrial Alliance and Financial Services Inc., 2019 SKQB 75. Counsel for Ituna Investment LP in litigation regarding the proper interpretation of the investment features of a universal life insurance policy, and the proper interpretation and application of insurance regulations
• Great Western Brewing Company Ltd. v Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission, 2018 ABQB 476. Counsel for Great Western Brewing Company Ltd. in a successful application for an order declaring a liquor markup to be unconstitutional. The markup was challenged on the ground that, by imposing higher markup rates on out-of-province beer, it created a barrier to interprovincial trade and was therefore contrary to section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867. This is the first time that a law has been successfully challenged on the ground that it violates section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867
• Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Attorney General of Canada, 2016 SCC 1. Counsel for Canadian Pacific Railway Company before the Supreme Court of Canada in an appeal challenging the validity of interswitching regulations enacted by the Canadian Transportation Agency. The regulations were challenged on the ground that the Agency was improperly interfered with by Ministers of the federal government who directed the Agency as to how and when it should exercise its independent regulation-making power
• Saskatchewan (Attorney General) v Lemare Lake Logging Ltd., 2015 SCC 53. Appointed by the Supreme Court of Canada as amicus curiae in an appeal regarding the doctrine of federal paramountcy. The issue was whether Part II of The Saskatchewan Farm Security Act (which requires, among other things, a 150-day notice period before enforcing a mortgage on farm land) frustrated the purpose of section 243(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (which permits the appointment of a receiver on 10 days’ notice) and was therefore inoperative
• Robin Hood Management Ltd. et al. v Gelmich et al., 2014 SKQB 347. Counsel for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (the “SHRC”) in a successful application for an order striking a Statement of Claim relating to a sexual harassment complaint filed with the SHRC by one of the co-defendants. Although decided on other grounds, the Court accepted that there was a strong argument that the SHRC is not a body capable of being sued for damages in tort

• Member, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Advisory Committee, MLT Aikins
• Member, Canadian Bar Association
• Member, Saskatchewan Bar Association
• Member, Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association

• Law Society of Saskatchewan Gold Medal (2011)
• The Honourable Donald Alexander McNiven Prize, Law (2011)
• Saskatchewan Branch Award of Excellence, Canadian Bar Association (2010)
• Canada Law Book Company Prize (2009; 2010; 2011)
• Saskatchewan Law Review Honour (2010)
• Blakes Scholar Award (2009, 2010)
• Canada Law Book Company Prize (2009; 2010; 2011)
• William Elliott Scholarship, Law (2008)
• Undergraduate Scholarships (Simon Fraser, 2004-2007)
• Kenneth Strand National Entrance Scholarship (Simon Fraser, 2003)