(no title)

Hudson’s Bay in Insolvency Proceedings: Employees’ Severance Payments & Directors’ Retention Bonuses

On March 31, 2025

Matter Commented On: Insolvency Proceedings of Hudson’s Bay Co.

PDF Version: Hudson’s Bay in Insolvency Proceedings: Employees’ Severance Payments & Directors’ Retention Bonuses

Hudson’s Bay Co. (Hudson’s Bay), founded in 1670, is the oldest company in North America. It is now, unfortunately, insolvent, and has obtained protection from its creditors under Canada’s restructuring legislation, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36 (CCAA) (see In Re Hudson’s Bay Company, 2025 ONSC 1530 (Re Hudson’s Bay)).

The Municipal District of Ranchland Stands Strong Against More Coal Exploration

By Nigel Bankes

On March 26, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Ranchland (Municipal District No 66) v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 ABCA 105 (CanLII).

PDF Version: The Municipal District of Ranchland Stands Strong Against More Coal Exploration

The short version of this post is that Justice April Grosse of the Alberta Court of Appeal has granted the MD of Ranchland permission to appeal four questions of law relating to Minister Jean’s cancellation of the coal moratorium and subsequent, but related, decisions of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to reinstate certain coal exploration permits (CEPs). Drew Yewchuk and I examined Minister Jean’s decision to cancel the moratorium here: Coal Moratoriums, They Come and Go. That post provides links to a series of ABlawg posts going back to 2020 dealing with the law and regulation of coal projects in Alberta.

What follows provides context for the decision on this permission to appeal application as well as some analysis of the decision.

Can An Oil and Gas Operator Carry On Bitcoin Operations Under The Terms of a Surface Lease?

By Nigel Bankes

On March 20, 2025

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions Commented On: Persist Oil and Gas Inc v Flowers, 2023 ABLPRT 236 (CanLII) (the ROE Decision), Flowers v Persist Oil and Gas Inc., 2024 ABLPRT 271 (CanLII) (the Compensation Decision), and Flowers v Persist Oil and Gas Inc., 2025 ABKB 142 (CanLII) (the KB Decision)

PDF Version: Can An Oil and Gas Operator Carry On Bitcoin Operations Under The Terms of a Surface Lease?

Bitcoin operators have an incentive to co-locate with natural gas production sites that offer the opportunity to self-generate electricity to power the bitcoin operations without needing to pay interconnection charges. Just bring some portable generators onto the site, add the necessary computing capacity and let it rip! While other approvals will usually be required, some bitcoin operators have played fast and loose until brought into line through the enforcement actions of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). I wrote about one example of this a few years ago in “Off-Grid Energy for Bitcoin Mines in Alberta: A Problematic Legal Regime” (2021).

Beyond the Pale: The February 2025 Updates to the Mine Financial Security Program

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 19, 2025

In Administrative Law, Natural Resources

By: Drew Yewchuk and Martin Olszynski

Documents Commented on: Mine Financial Security Program Standard [December 2025], AER Manual 024: Guide to the Mine Financial Security Program [February 25, 2025].

PDF Version: Beyond the Pale: The February 2025 Updates to the Mine Financial Security Program

AER Bulletin 2025-06 was posted on February 25, 2025, announcing an updated Manual 024: Guide to the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). The new Manual 024 was preceded by two rounds of updates to the MFSP Standard in October 2024 and December 2024. The MFSP Standard sets out the rules for the MFSP and is incorporated by reference into the Conservation and Reclamation Regulation, Alta Reg 115/1993 (s 16.1). The Manual is intended to assist mine owners in their understanding of its various requirements. The changes to the MFSP made by the updates to the Standard and the Manual are not entirely trivial, but they repair only the more blatant and marginal deficiencies with the MFSP; the overall financial unsoundness of the MFSP – and its counterproductive asset to liability approach in particular – has been left intact. The Guide also remains replete with out-dated references that betray a troubling lack of professionalism and due regard for the public and relevant stakeholders, including downstream Indigenous peoples.

Narrow Interpretations v Commercial Realities: Striking the Right Balance in Poonian

By Jassmine Girgis

On March 17, 2025

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case Commented On: Henderson v Peerani, 2024 ABCA 370 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Narrow Interpretations v Commercial Realities: Striking the Right Balance in Poonian

In the recent case of Poonian v British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2024 SCC 28 (CanLII) (Poonian), the Supreme Court of Canada clarified s 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA), the false pretence and fraudulent misrepresentation exception to bankruptcy discharge. Henderson v Peerani, 2024 ABCA 370 (CanLII), is one of the first cases to deal with the same exception after Poonian.