Author Archives: Nigel Bankes

About Nigel Bankes

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.

Building energy empires on (legal) foundations of sand, or, can I have my cake and eat it too?

PDF version: Building energy empires on (legal) foundations of sand, or, can I have my cake and eat it too?

Case commented on: Remington Development Corporation v Enmax Power Corporation, 2011 ABQB 694, aff’d 2012 ABCA 196.

Most people would think that if Utility Co (U Co) needs access to cross Y’s land in order to construct a major capital investment in the form of a utility right of way, U Co will secure any necessary access rights (easement or utility right of way) either: (1) by way of an agreement, or (2) by way of expropriation if Y tries to extract hold-out rents.  In either case, U Co will want the expropriation or agreement to bind the land: i.e. to run with the land no matter what Y does with it (sell it, assign it into bankruptcy etc.).  And in either case one would think that U Co (and its lawyers) would want to make sure that the agreement bound the land for so long as U Co needed the right of way – or at least for a reasonable amortization period for the investment that U Co is about to make, so as to ensure that it does not have stranded assets on its hands, or worse still, a gap in its transmission system.

Continue reading →

When is a registered joint tenancy not a joint tenancy and not even co-ownership?

PDF version: When is a registered joint tenancy not a joint tenancy and not even co-ownership?

Cases Considered: Lutz v Lutz, 2012 ABQB 300; Lemoine v Smashnuk, 2008 ABQB 193

On a statutory application to terminate co-ownership under Part 3 of the Law of Property Act, RSA 2000, c L-7, can a court conclude that there was no co-ownership?

Lucas Lutz wanted to buy a house but did not qualify for a mortgage. Lucas’ brother, Eric, agreed to help. The deal was structured so that title to the house was transferred to Lucas Lutz and Eric Lutz as joint tenants. Two mortgages used in financing the purchase were granted by both Lucas and Eric; one was paid off but the other still secured an outstanding balance of approximately $90,000. Lucas made all of the subsequent mortgage payments. Lucas and Eric both lived in the house and paid utilities, but Eric moved out after 7 years, in 2006. Up until 2006, Eric also made payments to Lucas that Lucas characterized as rent and Eric characterized as contributions to the mortgage payments. There was no written agreement between Lucas and Eric.

Continue reading →

Dower Consent Teasers

Case considered: Karafiat v Webb, 2012 ABCA 115 and Webb (Re), 2011 ABQB 89.

PDF: Dower Consent Teasers

This case shows that the Dower Act, RSA 2000, c D-15 can still throw up intellectual teasers 55 years after this version of the statute was first enacted (Dower Act, 1948 (Alta), c 7). The case highlights the distinction between the consent required by section 4 of the Act (the normal case), and the consent required under section 25(2). Section 25(2) deals with the situation where the homestead property is co-owned by the spouses. The issue is whether a request by both spouses to the holder of a charge to postpone that charge is a consent to a disposition (i.e. the charge) for the purposes of section 4 or section 25(2). The majority responds in the negative.

Continue reading →

More Grist for the Mill, Another Case of Gross Negligence under CAPL 1990

PDF version: More grist for the mill, another case of gross negligence under CAPL 1990

Case commented on: Trident Exploration Corp. (Re), 2012 ABQB 242

An operator under a pooling agreement who agrees to take charge of responding to a Crown offset notice and who fails to do so and fails to inform tract owners that it is no longer intending to respond, is grossly negligent within the meaning of Article 4 of the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure.

Continue reading →

Competing Uses of Geological Space: Resolving Conflicts Between Production and Natural Gas Storage

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Competing Uses of Geological Space: Resolving Conflicts Between Production and Natural Gas Storage 

Decision Commented On: Kallisto Energy Corp. Application for a Well Licence Crossfield East Field, 2012 ABERCB 005, February 24, 2012

This decision deals with the potential for conflict between conventional oil and gas operations and natural gas storage projects.

The idea of resource use or landscape level conflicts is familiar to us in the context of the use of the surface. Consider, for example, the conflicts between recreation and forestry interests, between forestry and oil sands or conventional oil and gas exploration. The idea of competing uses of the subsurface is less familiar but our search for new resources or the application of new technologies to known resources is increasing the potential for those subsurface conflicts. High pressure fracturing operations to stimulate production either from shallow oil formations or deeper shale gas formations raises concerns about the effect of these operations on potable groundwater resources, and proposals to sequester carbon dioxide in saline formations or depleted oil or gas reservoirs raises concerns of sterilizing hydrocarbon resources. The province’s new CCS regime explicitly addresses this scenario through a provision in the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, (OGCA) RSA 2000, c O-6, s. 39(1.1) which provides that the ERCB “may not approve a scheme for the disposal of captured carbon dioxide to an underground formation…unless the [applicant] satisfies the Board that the injection of the captured carbon dioxide will not interfere with (a) the recovery or conservation of oil or gas, or (b) an existing use of the underground formation for the storage of oil or gas.”

Continue reading →