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.

Little Salmon and the juridical nature of the duty to consult and accommodate

PDF version: Little Salmon and the juridical nature of the duty to consult and accommodate 

Case commented on: Beckman v Little/Salmon Carmacks First Nation, 2010 SCC 53

This is the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to deal head on with the relationship between the terms of a constitutionally protected land claims agreement (LCA) and the duty to consult and accommodate. The Court holds that the terms of an LCA do not exhaust the Crown’s duty to consult, or, to put it another way, an LCA is not a complete code but is embedded in the general legal system embracing both constitutional law norms and administrative law norms. This means that the Crown may have consultation obligations that are additive to those found in the text of an LCA. However, the majority articulates a narrow view of the content of the duty to consult and thus it was easy for the Court to find that the Crown — here the Government of Yukon (YTG) — had satisfied its obligations. In my view the content of the duty to consult articulated by the Court in this case is no greater than that which would be provided by the application of standard principles of administrative law. This impoverished view of the duty to consult is hardly likely to contribute to the constitutional goal of inter-societal reconciliation.

Continue reading →

The Energy Resources Conservation Board proposes to repeal provincial legislation

Proposal commented on: ERCB Bulletin 2010 – 42, Invitation for Feedback on Draft Legislative Amendments for Removing Industrial Development Permits for Energy Resource Use

Yes. That’s right. In Bulletin 2010-42 issued on December 2, 2010 the ERCB announced that it is “proposing to remove industrial development permits (IDP) legislation from its mandate”. If that wasn’t clear enough the Bulletin goes on to state that “The ERCB is proposing to repeal Sections 28 to 31 of the CCA, [Coal Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c. C-17], Section 43 of the OGCA, [Oil and Gas Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c. O- 6] and Section 12 of the OSCA [Oil Sands Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c. O- 7]. The ERCB is also proposing to modify the definitions of a “processing plant” and “oil sands products” under the OSCA to provide greater clarity as to what types of facilities would fall under the ERCB’s jurisdiction.”

Continue reading →

Alberta Makes Significant Progress in Establishing a Legal and Regulatory Regime to Accommodate Carbon Capture and Storage (CSS) Projects

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Alberta Makes Significant Progress in Establishing a Legal and Regulatory Regime to Accommodate Carbon Capture and Storage (CSS) Projects

Legislation Commented On: Bill 24, Carbon Capture and Storage Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, The Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Third Session, 27th Legislature, 59 Elizabeth II

On November 1, 2010 the Minister of Energy introduced in the legislature Bill 24, the Carbon Capture and Storage Statutes Amendment Act. If and when enacted, the Bill will amend four of the provinces’s energy statutes, the Energy Resources Conservation Act (ERCA), RSA 2000, c.E-10, the Mines and Minerals Act (MMA), RSA 2000, c. M-17, the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA), RSA 2000, c.O-6 and the Surface Rights Act (SRA), RSA 2000, c.S-24, all in a bid to accommodate CCS projects and provide clear legal and regulatory rules for such projects. This blog focuses on the amendments to the MMA and the OGCA.

Continue reading →

The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the role of administrative tribunals in discharging the duty to consult

PDF version: The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the role of administrative tribunals in discharging the duty to consult 

Case considered: Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43

In the 1950s British Columbia authorized Alcan to develop the Nechako and Kemano Rivers for power purposes to supply Alcan’s aluminum facility at Kitimat. This development occurred in the traditional territory of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) First Nations. There was no consultation at that time. Since then Alcan has sold excess power from its facilities to BC Hydro (a Crown corporation) and in 2007 the parties negotiated an energy purchase agreement (EPA) to cover the period up until 2034. Sales have been growing in recent years as Alcan has found it more profitable to generate electricity than make aluminum: Kitimat (District) v. British Columbia (Minister of Energy and Mines), 2008 BCCA 81.

Continue reading →

Injunction Denied in Oil and Gas Right of First Refusal Case

PDF version: Injunction denied in oil and gas right of first refusal case

Case considered: NAL GP Ltd. v. BP Canada Energy Company, 2010 ABQB 626

NAL was the successor in interest to an agreement between BP and Spearpoint which afforded each party mutual rights of first refusal (ROFR). The agreement (which was not a Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen (CAPL) form) apparently covered a number of different properties. In July 2010 BP announced that it had reached an agreement with Apache to sell certain assets including the assets subject to the ROFR. There were negotiations surrounding the possible waiver of the ROFR but on September 1 NAL requested that BP prepare the ROFR notices required by the agreement. BP did so. The notices (12) were delivered September 20. The aggregate value of the 12 packages was $1.56 billion. The total sale price was $3.25 billion (US). The agreement required the ROFR to be exercised within 15 days.

In this application NAL sought a declaration that the notices were deficient or alternatively a temporary injunction. NAL also sought to examine documents relating to the sale and oral discovery of representatives of BP and Apache and sought to abridge the 15 day notice period.

Continue reading →