Author: Nigel Bankes Page 83 of 89

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.

Cases Considered: Tribute Resources Inc v. McKinley Farms Ltd, 2009 CanLII 33043 (ON S.C.)

PDF version: Ontario Oil and Gas Case of interest to the Calgary Bar.

While most of the country’s oil and gas cases are decided in Alberta courts (even if in some cases the property to which the litigation pertains is, for example, in British Columbia – see eg Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Encana Oil & Gas Partnership, 2008 ABCA 267 dealing with right of first refusal issues in relation to a property in British Columbia), sometimes the courts in other Canadian jurisdictions do get to add to the body of Canadian oil and gas law.

Court of Appeal Rejects the Constructive Trust Analysis in Brookfield

By Nigel Bankes

On June 25, 2009

In Oil & Gas, Remedies

Case considered: Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v. Vanquish Oil and Gas Corporation, 2009 ABCA 99, reversing 2008 ABQB 444

PDF version: Court of Appeal rejects the constructive trust analysis in Brookfield

The Court of Appeal by a 2:1 majority (Justices Frans Slatter and Patricia Rowbotham for the majority, Justice Ronald Berger dissenting) has overruled the decision at trial by Justice Bruce McDonald to impose a constructive trust on the assets of an operator beyond the express trust provided for by clause 507 of the CAPL Agreement.

Successful application for summary dismissal in an oil and gas lease validity case

By Nigel Bankes

On June 23, 2009

In Oil & Gas

Case considered: Desoto Resources Limited v Encana Corporation, 2009 ABQB 337

PDF version: Successful application for summary dismissal in an oil and gas lease validity case

In this case Jodie L. Mason, Master in Chambers, granted summary dismissal of an action brought by Desoto as proceedings to justify the continuation of its caveat. I have blogged on this fact pattern on a previous occasion as a comment on the Board’s decision to suspend Desoto’s licence.

Rights of first refusal in a package sale of oil and gas properties: a follow up to Chase Manhattan

By Nigel Bankes

On April 21, 2009

In Oil & Gas

Cases considered: Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. v. ConocoPhillips Western Canada Partnership, unreported judgement of Master Hanebury, February 26, 2009
Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. v. ConocoPhillips Western Canada Partnership, 2009 ABQB 202 (Master in Chambers)

PDF version: Rights of first refusal in a package sale of oil and gas properties: a follow up to Chase Manhattan

The rationale for the right of first refusal (ROFR) in the context of jointly owned oil and gas properties is well understood. ROFRs are typically included in a variety of oil and gas agreements and in particular the operating agreement (see Article 24 of the various iterations of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen (“CAPL”) form). But they are messy, especially in so-called package sales where a party is disposing of a number of assets in a particular deal. Current versions of the CAPL form provide a procedure for dealing with package deals but the provisions are not free of difficulty and older forms offer little if any guidance.

The Tromsø Meeting of the Parties to the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears: A Comment on Three Aspects of the Meeting Report

By Nigel Bankes

On April 17, 2009

In Climate Change, Environmental, International Law, Protection of Species

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Tromsø Meeting of the Parties to the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears: A Comment on Three Aspects of the Meeting Report

Document Commented On: Meeting of the parties to the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, Tromsø, Norway, 17 – 19 March 2009 Outcome of Meeting

A few weeks ago (March 17 – 19, 2009) the parties to the 1973 Polar Bear Agreement met in Tromsø to consider the further implementation of the Agreement. This is a significant breakthrough. Apart from a meeting of the parties back in 1981 when the Parties decided to continue the Agreement in force as contemplated by Article X(6) of the Agreement and in informal meeting of the range states in 2007, the parties have never considered the further implementation of this Agreement.