×
Go back to Martindale-Avvo ➔

Field LawPartner
Derek Cranna, KC

Derek Cranna, KC

Not yet reviewed

2500 - 10175 101 Street NW, Edmonton, AB T5J 0H3

Education, Labour + Employment, Law Enforcement and 3 more

About Derek Cranna, KC

Derek Cranna, KC is a lawyer practicing education, labour + employment, law enforcement and 3 other areas of law. Derek received a degree from University of Saskatchewan in 1993, and has been licensed for 27 years. Derek practices at Field Law in Edmonton, AB.

Derek Cranna, KC (Edmonton, Alberta)

Reviews for Derek

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Law Enforcement
  • Other 5
    • Education
    • Labour + Employment
    • Occupational Health + Safety
    • Professional Regulatory
    • Public Sector

Practice Details

  • Firm Information
    Position
    Partner
    Firm Name
    Field Law
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Reported Cases: Kozina v. Edmonton (Police Service) 2016 ABLERB 022 Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board 2016
    Downing v. Edmonton (Police Service) 2016 ABLERB 020 Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board 2016
    MF et al v. Edmonton (Police Service) 2016 ABLERB 018 Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board 2016
    Alberta v. Suncor Energy Inc. 2016 ABQB 264 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench 2016
    L
    v Law Enforcement Review Board 2013 ABCA 435 Alberta Court of Appeal 2013
    Camrose (Chief of Police) v MacDonald 2013 ABCA 422 Alberta 2013
    Camrose (Police Service) v MacDonald 2013 ABCA 225 Alberta Court of Appeal 2013
    Wasylyshen v. Edmonton Police Service 2012 ABQB 406 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench 2012
    TBM Transportation Ltd. v. Tri-Star Transport Ltd. 2011 ABCA 358 Alberta Court of Appeal 2011
    Edmonton (Police Service) v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board), 2011 ABCA 288 (CanLII) 2011 ABCA 288 Alberta Court of Appeal 2011
    Mitzel v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board) 2010 ABCA 336 Alberta Court of Appeal 2010
    Edmonton (Police Service) v. Alberta (Law Enforcement Review Board) 2010 ABCA 241 Alberta Court of Appeal 2010
    Guy v. Fisher & Edge LERB-023-2008 Law Enforcement Review Board 2008
    Vu v. Kluthe LERB-013-2008 Law Enforcement Review Board 2008
    EPS v. Thinh Duc Vu LERB-011-2008 Law Enforcement Review Board 2008
    Admissibility of Involuntary Statements LERB-003R-2008 Law Enforcement Review Board 2008
    EPS v. Thinh Duc Vu LERB-001-2008 Law Enforcement Review Board 2008
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2008 FC 322 Federal Court 2008
    Sawridge B
    v. Canada 2007 FC 768 Federal Court 2007
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2007 FC 657 Federal Court 2007
    Sawridge B
    v. Canada 2007 FC 1054 Federal Court 2007
    Khedr-Selim v. Dubord & Ryan LERB-013-2006 Law Enforcement Review Board 2006
    Khedr-Selim v. Cardoso & Jenkinson LERB-010-2006 Law Enforcement Review Board 2006
    Disclosure re various appeals LERB-008-2006 Law Enforcement Review Board 2006
    Thinh Duc Vu & CTLA v. Pick LERB-006-2006 Law Enforcement Review Board 2006
    Khedr-Selim v. Wolfert LERB-002-2006 Law Enforcement Review Board 2006
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2006 FCA 52 Federal Court of Canada 2006
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2006 FCA 228 Federal Court of Canada 2006
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2006 FC 656 Federal Court 2006
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2006 FC 1467 Federal Court 2006
    Sawridge B
    v. Canada 2006 FC 1218 Federal Court 2006
    Sawridge B
    v. Canada 2006 FC 1179 Federal Court 2006
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2005 FCA 259 Federal Court of Canada 2005
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2005 FC 607 Federal Court 2005
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2005 FC 1501 Federal Court 2005
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2005 FC 1476 Federal Court 2005
    Horseman v. Horse Lake First Nation 2005 ABCA 214 Alberta Court of Appeal 2005
    Horseman v. Horse Lake First Nation 2005 ABCA 15 Alberta Court of Appeal 2005
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2004 CF 1721 Federal Court 2004
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2004 CF 1705 Federal Court 2004
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2004 CF 1653 Federal Court 2004
    Sawridge B
    v. R. 2004 CF 1436 Federal Court 2004
    University of Alberta v. Penny Lane Communications Inc. 2003 ABQB 807 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench 2003
    Horseman v. Horse Lake First Nation 2002 ABQB 765 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench 2002
    Horseman v. Horse Lake First Nation [2002] A.J. No. 1020 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench 2002
    Moss v. TransCanada Pieplines Ltd. 1999 CarswellSask 666 Alberta Court of Queen's Bench 1999

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    1999, Saskatchewan
    2001, Alberta
    Memberships

    Professional

    Canadian Association of University Solicitors
    Member
    2008 - Present
    Law Society of Alberta
    Member
    2001 - Present
    Edmonton Bar Association
    Member
    2001 - Present
    Law Society of Saskatchewan
    Member
    1999 - Present (non-practicing)
    Canadian Bar Association
    Member
    1998 - Present

  • Education & Certifications
    Other Education
    University of Saskatchewan
    Class of 1993
    Bachelor of Arts

    University of Saskatchewan
    Class of 1998
    Bachelor of Laws

Derek Cranna, KC

Partner at Field Law
Not yet reviewed

2500 - 10175 101 Street NWEdmonton, AB T5J 0H3Canada

Show on map

Email Derek Cranna, KC

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message:
Return to Profile Reset Form
Lawyers.com Client Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review Ratings™ display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms.

The Client Review Rating score is determined through the aggregation of validated responses. People who submit reviews are either individuals who consulted with the lawyer/law firm or who hired the lawyer/law firm and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals.

Martindale-Hubbell validates that a reviewer is a person with a valid email address. As part of the review process, respondents must affirm that they have had an initial consultation, are currently a client or have been a client of the lawyer or law firm identified, although Martindale-Hubbell cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship as it is often confidential. The content of the responses is entirely from reviewers.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Client Review Page

Martindale Peer Reviews

Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ are the gold standard in attorney ratings, and have been for more than a century. These ratings indicate attorneys who are widely respected by their peers for their ethical standards and legal expertise in a specific area of practice.

The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings process is the gold standard due to its objectivity and comprehensiveness. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. All reviewers are verified as attorneys through Martindale-Hubbell’s extensive attorney database. Only attorneys practicing at least three years and receiving a sufficient number of reviews from non-affiliated attorneys are eligible to receive a Rating.

What are the different Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings?*

• AV Preeminent®: The highest peer rating standard. This rating signifies that a large number of the lawyer’s peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence for their legal knowledge, communication skills and ethical standards.

• Distinguished: An excellent rating for a lawyer with some experience. This rating indicates the attorney is widely respected by their peers for high professional achievement and ethical standards.

• Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards.

Lawyers who have received peer reviews after 2009 will display more detailed information, including practice areas, summary ratings, detailed numeric ratings and written feedback (if available). Details for individual reviews received before 2009 are not displayed.

Attorneys that receive reviews from their peers, but not a sufficient number to establish a Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating, will have those reviews display on our websites.

For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings™, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions