Author: Nigel Bankes Page 61 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.

Ontario Court of Appeal Confirms that the Courts Have Some Residual Jurisdiction Over Natural Gas Storage Matters

By Nigel Bankes

On September 27, 2013

In Oil & Gas

PDF Version: Ontario Court of Appeal Confirms that the Courts Have Some Residual Jurisdiction Over Natural Gas Storage Matters

Case Commented On: 2195002 Ont. Inc. v Tribute Resources Inc, 2013 ONCA 576

In this decision the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the conclusion reached in two separate applications before the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario related to a gas storage matter. For my post on these two decisions see here.

One decision, Tribute Resources v 2195002 Ontario Inc, 2012 ONSC 25 dealt with the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to consider the matter, the argument being that all gas storage issues should be litigated before the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) because of the preclusive clauses in the Ontario Energy Board Act, SO 1998, c.15 and the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Snopko v Union Gas Ltd, 2010 ONCA 248, the subject of an earlier post here. A second decision, that of Justice Helen Rady in 21955002 Ontario Inc v Tribute Resources Inc 2012 ONSC 5412, dealt with the substantive question of whether Tribute could claim storage rights on the basis of an oil and gas lease and a unitization agreement or whether its rights were confined to such rights as it held under a gas storage lease which lease the Ontario Court of Appeal in an earlier action held to have expired: Tribute Resources v McKinley Farms, 2010 ONCA 392, also the subject of a previous ABlawg post here.

The Crown Owes No Duty to Consult Indigenous Communities Before Ratifying a Bilateral Investment Treaty

By Nigel Bankes

On September 10, 2013

In Aboriginal, International Law

PDF Version: The Crown Owes No Duty to Consult Indigenous Communities Before Ratifying a Bilateral Investment Treaty

Case commented on: Hupacasath First Nation v Minister of Foreign Affairs Canada and the Attorney General of Canada, 2013 FC 2009

In this case Chief Justice Crampton of the Federal Court Trial Division rejected the application of the claimant Hupacasath First Nation (HFN) for a declaration that Canada is required to engage in a process of consultation and accommodation with First Nations, including HFN, prior to ratifying or taking other specific steps that will bind Canada to the terms of the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (CCFIPPA) (text available here). It was common ground (at paras 11 and 12) that while the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade had consulted with stakeholders, that consultation did not extend to HFN or other First Nations.

Kallisto #2. Competing Uses of Geological Space: Resolving Conflicts Between Oil Production and Natural Gas Storage Interests

By Nigel Bankes

On August 1, 2013

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF version: Kallisto #2. Competing Uses of Geological Space: Resolving Conflicts Between Oil Production and Natural Gas Storage Interests

Decision Commented On: Kallisto Energy Corp Application for a Well Licence, Crossfield East Field, July 23, 2013, 2013 ABAER 013

In a sequel to the ERCB’s Decision, Kallisto Energy Corp Application for a Well Licence Crossfield East Field, 2012 AERCB 005, February 24, 2012 (hereafter Kallisto # 1), the subject of an earlier ABlawg post, the new Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has handed down its decision on a proposal by Kallisto Energy to drill another oil well on lands immediately adjacent to CrossAlta’s natural gas storage facility north of Airdrie.

Options to Purchase and the Relentless Logic of Semelhago: One More Reason for the Legislative Repeal of a Disastrous Decision

By Nigel Bankes

On July 17, 2013

In Property

PDF version: Options to Purchase and the Relentless Logic of Semelhago: One More Reason for the Legislative Repeal of a Disastrous Decision

Case commented on: Mylona Enterprises Ltd v Foundation Place Inc, 2013 ABQB 385.

Does an option to purchase that is subject to a number of contingencies afford the optionee an equitable interest in land for the purposes of establishing that the optionee has a proof of a claim under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36? In this case Justice Yamauchi held that it does so notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Semelhago v Paramadevan, [1996] 2 SCR 415 and the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in 1244034 Alberta Ltd v Walton International Group Inc, 2007 ABCA 372.

The Territorial Basis of Métis Hunting Rights

By Nigel Bankes

On July 16, 2013

In Aboriginal

PDF version: The Territorial Basis of Métis Hunting Rights

Case commented on: R v Hirsekorn, 2013 ABCA 242.

There is something special about the Cypress Hills area of southeast Alberta and southwest Saskatchewan. I remember my first visit to this beautiful area some twenty years ago and although I have not been back more than a handful of times since, the region still resonates vividly in my memory of landscapes and seascapes. The special nature of this region was also recognized by the aboriginal peoples of the plains long before colonial settlement although it was clearly contested territory as between Blackfeet peoples to the west and Cree peoples to the east. Indeed, as the record in this case amply demonstrates, the Cypress Hills was a place for visits and for forays but not a place to stay for a long time. And if this was true for the Blackfeet and Cree it was even more so for the Métis who could not safely stay in the area before the North West Mounted Police established a presence there in 1874.