Comments on: Obtaining Leave to Intervene in a Leave to Appeal Application

By: Nickie Vlavianos

Nickie Vlavianos — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:35:25 +0000

UPDATE ON DECISION:

Hi Steve,

Leave to appeal was ultimately not granted in this case. In October 2008, Justice P. Martin dismissed the application on the basis that it did not raise a meritorious argument because “the evidentiary record [was] lacking and because another tribunal [i.e., the National Energy Board] will be deciding the same question on better information.” See Provident Energy Ltd. v. Alberta Utilities Commission and Nova Gas Transmission Ltd., 2008 ABCA 362.

Subsequently, the National Energy Board issued its decision on the constitutional question in February 2009. It concluded that Nova’s Alberta System fell within federal jurisdiction and properly subject to NEB authority. See Nigel Bankes’ post entitled “TransCanada’s Alberta Pipeline System now under federal regulatory authority” at http://ablawg.ca/2009/03/23/transcanada%E2%80%99s-alberta-pipeline-system-now-under-federal-regulatory-authority/

By: Steve Hill

Steve Hill — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:15:57 +0000

Can we have an update on the decision?

By: Gary Perkins

Gary Perkins — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:41:47 +0000

I was involved in the NGTL hearing as AUC counsel and appreciate your comments on the test for granting intervener status at the leave stage. One point of correction, the jurisdictional issue arose after and as a direct result of TCPL filing its application at the NEB. Provident and others argued that TCPL’s assertion in its NEB application that the NOVA system was a federal undertaking should have been sufficient proof of the matter for the AUC to decide it did not have jurisdiction to approve the NOVA application.

BTW- the leave application was heard October 14, and a decision is expected the week of October 20.