ABLawg

Case Commented On: Nova Fish Farms Inc v Cold Ocean Salmon Inc, 2025 NLCA 28 (CanLII)

PDV Version: “Time is of the Essence” Clauses are Incompatible with Indefinite Time Provisions

A “time is of the essence” (TOE) clause is a boilerplate contract clause that renders a time limit or deadline in a contract to be a fundamental term of the agreement, entitling the other party to terminate the agreement if that term is breached, even in a minor way.

In Nova Fish Farms Inc v Cold Ocean Salmon Inc, 2025 NLCA 28 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador decided that a TOE clause does not apply to an indefinite time provision in a contract. On January 22, 2026, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal this decision.

The Application of Provincial Statutes of Limitation to Indigenous Claims

By Kent McNeil

On February 26, 2026

In Indigenous, Limitations, Treaty Rights

By: Kent McNeil

Case Commented On: Wesley v Alberta, 2024 ABCA 276 (CanLII), leave to appeal denied, Stoney Indian Band, et al. v His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of Alberta, et al., 2025 CanLII 44340 (SCC)

PDF Version: The Application of Provincial Statutes of Limitation to Indigenous Claims

The application of provincial statutes of limitation to Indigenous rights claims has become a major issue in recent years (for detailed discussion, see Kent McNeil & Thomas Enns, “Procedural Injustice: Indigenous Claims, Limitation Periods, and Laches” (2022) All Papers (McNeil & Enns). Because many of these claims are based on alleged wrongs committed long in the past, both the provincial and federal governments often rely on the expiry of statutory limitation periods and the equitable doctrine of laches to prevent them from ever being decided on their merits. The Supreme Court has generally accepted the limitations defence insofar as claims for substantive relief such as damages are concerned, but has ruled that declarations of Crown wrongdoing that are designed to promote negotiations, without entailing any consequential remedial relief, are not barred by limitation periods (e.g. see Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14 (CanLII); Shot Both Sides v Canada, 2024 SCC 12 (CanLII)). The Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Wesley v Alberta, 2024 ABCA 276 (Wesley ABCA), is a recent example of the application of limitation periods that, in my view, reveals a persistent lack of willingness by the courts to give serious consideration to the constitutional issues at stake.

Limiting Contractual Liability for Breaching the Duty of Good Faith

By Jassmine Girgis

On February 24, 2026

In Contracts, Corporate / Commercial, Indigenous, Remedies

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: 1401380 Ontario Limited (Wilderness North Air) v Hydro One Remote Communities Inc, 2025 ONCA 827 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Limiting Contractual Liability for Breaching the Duty of Good Faith

The contractual duty to exercise discretion in good faith applies to every contract, regardless of the parties’ intentions; parties cannot exclude the duty altogether. But what if they do not seek to exclude the duty itself, and instead seek only to limit the consequences of breaching it? Is that distinction legally meaningful? And is it permitted?

This post discusses how the duty to perform in good faith endures on both conceptual and practical grounds as long as there is liability for breaching it, even where that liability is contractually limited.

In 1401380 Ontario Limited (Wilderness North Air) v Hydro One Remote Communities Inc, 2025 ONCA 827 (CanLII), the Ontario Court of Appeal decided that parties may limit the scope of their liability for breach of the duty of good faith, and that doing so does not constitute contracting out of the duty itself.

AlphaBow Again Challenges AER Enforcement Related to Oil and Gas Closure Liabilities During Insolvency

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 23, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, Insolvency, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decisions Commented On: Re AlphaBow Energy Ltd., 2025 ABKB 622 (CanLII) (AlphaBow ABKB); Re AlphaBow Energy Ltd., 2026 ABCA 35 (CanLII) (AlphaBow ABCA)

PDF Version: AlphaBow Again Challenges AER Enforcement Related to Oil and Gas Closure Liabilities During Insolvency

This post comments on two decisions relating to the ongoing insolvency process of AlphaBow Energy Ltd. (AlphaBow). AlphaBow brought challenges to the power of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to require security deposits as a condition for transferring oil and gas licences from AlphaBow’s inventory. AlphaBow was unsuccessful at King’s Bench and then failed to get leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

This post provides some background to AlphaBow’s insolvency, summarizes the two decisions, and concludes with commentary on what AlphaBow’s ongoing insolvency process shows about oil and gas closure liability management and insolvency in Alberta.

The Light Goes Out at the NRCB on Major Recreational Project Reviews

By Shaun Fluker

On February 17, 2026

In Environmental, Land Use, Natural Resources

By: Shaun Fluker

Legislation Commented On: All-season Resorts Act, SA 2024, c A 38.5

PDF Version: The Light Goes Out at the NRCB on Major Recreational Project Reviews

At some point during the last few months of 2025, the Alberta Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) seems to have erased some history on reviewing major recreation and tourism projects in Alberta, by removing from its website several recreational project review decisions the NRCB issued in the early 1990s. This became apparent to me recently, as I prepared for a media interview to discuss the application by Fortress Mountain Holdings Ltd. under the All-season Resorts Act to construct and operate a new commercial and recreational destination in Kananaskis Country at the site of the former Fortress Mountain ski area (see here for some earlier media coverage of this expansive application). This short comment critiques the All-season Resorts Act and the removal of NRCB jurisdiction over major recreational projects.