Author: Nigel Bankes Page 1 of 90

Nigel Bankes is emeritus professor of law at the University of Calgary. Prior to his retirement in June 2021 Nigel held the chair in natural resources law in the Faculty of Law.

The CER Approves the Negotiated Settlement for TMX’s Tolls and Tariffs: One More Taxpayer Subsidy for Oilsands Producers

By Nigel Bankes

On October 20, 2026

In Administrative Law, Energy, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision Commented On: Canadian Energy Regulator, Approval of Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Negotiated Settlement, September 28, 2026

PDF Version: The CER Approves the Negotiated Settlement for TMX’s Tolls and Tariffs: One More Taxpayer Subsidy for Oilsands Producers

On September 28, 2026 the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) approved a negotiated settlement between Trans Mountain and shippers (largely oilsands producers) on the Trans Mountain Expansion project (TMX). While one shipper took no position on the application, all other shippers filed letters in support of the application. One intervenor, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation (TWN) (not a shipper), objected to the settlement.

What Can We Learn From A Failed Synapse Or Two?

By Nigel Bankes

On August 21, 2026

In Energy, Utility Regulation

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: AUC Decision 30732-D01-2026, Synapse Real Estate Corp., Synapse Data Center Power Plant Project, August 17, 2026

PDF Version: What Can We Learn From A Failed Synapse Or Two?

On August 17, 2026, a panel of commissioners of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) rejected, in trenchant terms, an application from Synapse Real Estate Corp (Synapse) to construct and operate a 1,400?megawatt (MW) combined-cycle natural gas-fired power plant together with massive amounts of backup diesel generation (1,800 MW) (together, the power facilities). The power facilities were to be located within the town of Olds and co-located with a large-scale data centre. The power plant was intended to provide electricity exclusively to the data centre and not be connected to the Alberta Interconnected Electric System (the grid). While the generation and data centre were clearly intended to be functionally integrated, the AUC has no jurisdiction over data centres. The AUC’s jurisdiction is confined to new power facilities under the terms of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, RSA 2000, c H-16 (HEEA), specifically ss 11 and 19, as supplemented by s 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, SA 2007, c A-37.2 (AUCA). Section 17 of the AUCA is crucial insofar as it confirmed that a principal criterion for approval is that the project be in the public interest.

Democracy Watch and its Implications for the Practice of Channeling Limited Judicial Supervision to Appellate Courts

By Nigel Bankes

On August 10, 2026

In Administrative Law, Appellate Practice, Law Reform, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: Democracy Watch v Canada (Attorney General), 2026 SCC 28 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Democracy Watch and its Implications for the Practice of Channeling Limited Judicial Supervision to Appellate Courts

This post assesses the implications of the Supreme Court’s unanimous and important decision in Democracy Watch for those many scenarios in which a provincial legislature channels some part, but only some part, of the judicial supervision of a regulatory tribunal to the province’s appellate courts. The drafting technique, at least in Alberta, is quite consistent. Step one, make provision for an appeal of a decision of a regulator to the Court of Appeal with a short limitation period; step two, confine that appeal to points of law or jurisdiction (i.e. no appeal on findings of fact or mixed findings of law and fact); step three, stipulate that the appeal is not as of right, but is subject to a leave or permission to appeal application; step four, confirm, by way of a broadly drafted privative clause, that the usual avenues for judicial review in the Court of King’s Bench are foreclosed.

A Successor in Title to the Settlor of a Trust (a GRTA) Cannot Apply to Vary That Trust

By Nigel Bankes

On July 28, 2026

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions commented on: Montreal Trust Company of Canada v Astl, 2026 ABKB 255 (CanLII) and Montreal Trust Company of Canada v Astl, 2026 ABKB 510 (CanLII).

PDF Version: A Successor in Title to the Settlor of a Trust (a GRTA) Cannot Apply to Vary That Trust

Joint Responsibility Under Alberta’s Mines and Minerals Act

By Nigel Bankes

On July 20, 2026

In Energy, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions commented on: Terra Energy Corp (Re), 2023 ABKB 236 (CanLII); Alberta (Energy and Minerals) v Spartan Delta Corp, 2026 ABCA 214 (CanLII); Alberta (Energy and Minerals) v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2026 ABCA 213 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Joint Responsibility Under Alberta’s Mines and Minerals Act

Alberta’s Mines and Minerals Act, RSA 2000, c M-17 (MMA) refers to the concept of joint responsibility in two places. Both references were added to the MMA in 2003, see SA 2003, c 18. This post reviews three cases that consider these provisions of the MMA: Terra Energy Corp (Re), 2023 ABKB 236 (CanLII) (Terra Energy), Alberta (Energy and Minerals) v Spartan Delta Corp, 2026 ABCA 214 (CanLII) (Spartan Delta), and Alberta (Energy and Minerals) v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2026 ABCA 213 (CanLII) (CNRL).