Monthly Archives: May 2008

Royalty Changes in Alberta: Why are we waiting? (to the tune of “O Come All ye Faithful”)

PDF Version: Royalty Changes in Alberta: Why are we waiting? (to the tune of “O Come All ye Faithful”)

One of the most damning indictments contained in the Report of the Royalty Review Panel in the fall of last year was the revelation that the current royalty regime for conventional oil and gas loses any sensitivity to increased prices at extraordinarily low levels. The Government itself acknowledged this deficiency in its own proposal for a new Royalty Framework where it states that sensitivity is lost for oil at about $30 per barrel and for natural gas at about $3.70/GJ.

Continue reading →

Provincial Court Small Claims Appeals: When is an appeal by way of trial de novo appropriate?

Cases Considered: Rezources Inc. v. Gift Lake Development Corp., 2008 ABQB 254

PDF Version:  Provincial Court Small Claims Appeals: When is an appeal by way of trial de novo appropriate? 

Section 51 of the Provincial Court Act, R.S.A. 2000 Ch. P-31, provides that an appeal of a Provincial Court decision is to be heard as an appeal on the record unless a party applies and the Court of Queen’s Bench orders that the appeal to be heard as a trial de novo. The default position is therefore an appeal on the record that was created at trial, usually a transcript of what was said and any exhibits that were entered.

Continue reading →

Leave to Intervene Denied to Insurance Co. in Appeal of Cap on Minor Injuries

Cases Considered: Pedersen v. Alberta, 2008 ABCA 192

PDF Version: Leave to Intervene Denied to Insurance Co. in Appeal of Cap on Minor Injuries

As noted in a previous post, on February 8, 2008, Associate Chief Justice Neil Wittmann of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench struck down the $4000 cap on non-pecuniary damages for soft tissue injuries incurred in motor vehicle accidents under s. 15 of the Charter. The defendants, the Alberta government and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, have filed an appeal of this ruling, and one of the plaintiffs (Morrow) has filed a cross-appeal of the dismissal of arguments made under s. 7 of the Charter. The Alberta courts’ most recent ruling in the case concerns the application of the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (Dominion) for leave to intervene in the appeal. On May 21, 2008, the Court of Appeal denied Dominion’s application.

Continue reading →

Do Common-Law Spouses have Dower Rights?

Cases Considered: Nielson v. Paumier Estate, 2008 ABCA 159

PDF Version:  Do Common-Law Spouses have Dower Rights?

Strictly speaking, Mr. Justice Jack Watson’s decision in Nielsen v. Paumier Estate is simply a decision denying an application to restore an appeal to the Court of Appeal’s hearing list. However, the factual and legal context of the application is both tragic and complex. It includes at least twelve court orders since 2003 dealing with the sale of one house in Edmonton. The real legal issue in the last few judgments, including this one by Mr. Justice Watson, was said to be whether or not Paul Nielsen’s consent to the sale of the house owned by Michele Paumier could be dispensed with under the provisions of the Dower Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. D-15. However, given that Nielsen is described as Paumier’s “common-law spouse,” is it not questionable whether Nielsen even has dower rights?

Continue reading →

Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization

Cases Considered: Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited v. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development et al, 2008 FC 598

PDF Version: Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization

The Federal Court’s decision in Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302, is proving to have more significance than I anticipated in my initial blog (see Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin). In that judgment, Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer held the Kearl joint panel erred in law by failing to comply with one of the duties imposed upon it by section 34 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans informed Imperial Oil that, as a consequence of the joint panel’s error in law, the Kearl project authorization issued by the Minister pursuant to the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, was a nullity. In correspondence addressed to Imperial Oil, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stated in part:

Please be advised that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is of the view that, as a result of the Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s decision, the Authorization for Works or Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat and the Authorization to Destroy Fish by any means other than Fishing (ED-03-2806) which was issued by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act to Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited on February 12, 2008, is a nullity.
Continue reading →