Author: Nigel Bankes Page 22 of 87

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.

Statutory Appeal Rights in Relation to Administrative Decision-Maker Now Attract an Appellate Standard of Review: A Possible Legislative Response

By Nigel Bankes

On January 3, 2020

In Administrative Law

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Statutory Appeal Rights in Relation to Administrative Decision-Maker Now Attract an Appellate Standard of Review: A Possible Legislative Response

Decision Commented On: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII)

The Supreme Court of Canada used Vavilov and its companion cases Bell Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 66 (CanLII)) (the Super Bowl Case) and Canada Post Corp. v Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67 (CanLII) as an opportunity to re-examine its approach to judicial review of administrative decisions. The Court reaffirmed much of the Dunsmuir approach (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (CanLII), [2008] 1 SCR 190) as refined in the subsequent case law. In particular, it has reaffirmed that in most cases the standard of review is reasonableness. The Court also reaffirmed a series of exceptions to that presumption namely where the legislature has indicated that a different standard should apply, and where the rule of law requires that a correctness standard should apply (i.e. constitutional questions, general questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole, and jurisdictional boundaries between two or more administrative bodies).

Provisional Application of an Amendment to the London Protocol to Facilitate Collaborative CCS Projects

By Nigel Bankes

On December 10, 2019

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Provisional Application of an Amendment to the London Protocol to Facilitate Collaborative CCS Projects

Document Commented On: Resolution LP.5(14) on the Provisional Application of the 2009 Amendment to Article 6 of the London Protocol, adopted 11 October 2019, by the 14^th Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matters. [Note: Documents relating to the London Convention and Protocol including this document may be accessed on the website of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) here but users have to create an account to obtain access. Follow “Meeting Documents” and then LC Documents (Session 41). For convenience, the text of the Resolution is included at the foot of this post].

This post examines the recent decision of the Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol (the London Protocol or LP) to the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matters (London Dumping Convention or LC) to agree to the provisional application of an amendment to Article 6 of the LP. That amendment (originally adopted in 2009) when it enters into force will allow the export of CO₂for geological sequestration. The amendment is a crucial piece of the puzzle to permit collaborative projects for the subsea disposal of captured carbon dioxide emissions from industrial facilities located elsewhere than the coastal State responsible for the disposal site. This initiative, which will permit provisional application of that amendment, will help facilitate projects such as the Equinor-led Northern Lights Project on the Norwegian continental shelf. That project is currently drilling a test well: see here and here.

Further Thoughts on The Law and Practice of Grandparenting

By Nigel Bankes

On December 2, 2019

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Further Thoughts on The Law and Practice of Grandparenting

Decision Commented On: AUC Decision 22942-D02-2019, Alberta Electric System Operator, 2018 Independent System Operator Tariff, September 22, 2019.

The term “grandparenting” refers to the decision of a legislator, regulator or utility service provider to exempt existing operations from new terms of service or from new regulatory requirements. The decision to grandparent or not, and the extent of any grandparenting (i.e. the cutoff point), is frequently very contentious. Although we see grandparenting issues in many different areas of the law, including environmental law, land use planning, tax law, royalties (see my earlier post on royalties and grandparenting here), and the criminal law (restricted weapons), this post focuses on grandparenting issues in energy and utility law. In particular, this post examines decisions of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) on grandparenting (or grandfathering as the term is usually written). The impetus to examine this issue arises from the AUC’s recent decision on the tariff application of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) (the AESO 2018 Tariff Decision). In that decision, the AUC made two rulings in favour of applying grandparenting. In my view, neither ruling is very well or completely reasoned. That led me to look at the AUC’s record to see how it had dealt with this issue in the past. My basic position is that one should always be at least suspicious of grandparenting. It is, on its face, discriminatory and those who favour a grandparenting arrangement in a regulatory context bear the onus of justifying that arrangement. It also may mean that parties do not compete on a level playing field and to that extent is inconsistent with a free, open and competitive market thus requiring further justification.

Federal Court of Appeal Rejects Another Attempted Appeal of the TMX Leave Decision

By Nigel Bankes

On October 23, 2019

In Energy, Environmental

By: David V. Wright, Martin Olszynski, and Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Federal Court of Appeal Rejects Another Attempted Appeal of the TMX Leave Decision

Case Commented On: Raincoast Conservation Foundation v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 259

The FCA has released another ruling in relation to its earlier leave decision on the consolidated TMX legal challenges (Raincoast Conservation Foundation v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 224 (Can LII); for our post on that decision see here). In this latest ruling the panel (including Justice David Stratas – who had authored the original decision) dismissed an attempted appeal (at para 4) brought by two NGOs. The panel reiterated Justice Stratas’ previous conclusion in Ignace v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 239 (for our post on that decision see here) that “appeals cannot be brought from this Court to this Court” and again pointing to the lack of any statutory basis for the FCA to hear such an appeal (at paras 7-9).

Two New Offset Well Cases

By Nigel Bankes

On October 10, 2019

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Two New Offset Well Cases

Cases Commented On: Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Lisafeld Royalties Ltd., 2019 SKQB 201 (Can LII); Whitecap Resources Inc. v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2019 ABQB 698 (Can LII)

This post examines two recent decisions dealing with offset well obligations under petroleum and natural gas leases. An offset well obligation is a clause in a lease that requires the lessee to drill a well on the leased lands where production has been obtained from a contiguous property and there is no similar well on the leased lands producing from the same formation. The purpose of the clause is to protect the lessor from the risk of drainage (i.e. where the well on the neighbouring property is or may be capturing hydrocarbons from under the lessor’s lands). While the primary obligation of the lessee is to drill to the target formation, more modern versions of the clause create additional options and allow the lessee instead of drilling to surrender all or some part of the lease, or pay a compensatory royalty to the lessor (i.e. a royalty paid on the production on the offsetting well as if it were occurring on the leased lands). This compound obligation is frequently described as drill, drop or pay obligation.