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.

Why Canada Should Not Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Why Canada Should Not Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol 

Rumours abound that Canada will withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol later this month. While Canada’s Minister of the Environment, Peter Kent, will not confirm these rumours (Montreal Gazette, November 29, 2011) there is reason for thinking that withdrawal is being actively considered if not already decided on (see “Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol next month“?)

This post discusses four questions. First, what is the law pertaining to withdrawal from an international environmental agreement (MEA)? Second, why is withdrawal being considered and what other options are available? Third, what might be some of the ramifications of a Canadian withdrawal? And fourth, what is the legal nature of the current commitment: whom does it bind?

Continue reading →

The property rights debate in Alberta

PDF version: The property rights debate in Alberta 

Document commented on: “Albertans asked for property rights input,” Government of Alberta Press Release, November 24, 2011

Premier Redford has announced the creation of a task force to ask “Albertans for their concerns regarding property rights.” According to the Press Release, Premier Redford has “heard concerns from landowners that their property rights need to be better respected,” and takes the view that “We need to move towards a more common-sense approach when it comes to property rights.”

Continue reading →

What is the effect of an invalid caveat? What is the effect of the lapse of an invalid caveat?

PDF version: What is the effect of an invalid caveat? What is the effect of the lapse of an invalid caveat?

Case commented on: Humford Developments Ltd. v 1026451 Alberta Ltd., 2011 ABQB 655

The decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Holt Renfrew & Co. v Henry Singer Ltd., (1982), 20 Alta LR (2d) 97 (CA) tells us that an old caveat protecting an old lease cannot protect a new lease, and that an invalid caveat purporting to protect an agreement for sale cannot protect the priority of that interest as against a subsequent caveat filed to protect the new lease. In this case (Humford) Justice Clackson concludes that a caveat that was invalid ab initio can protect the assignee of a lease against a new registered owner and that the lapse of such a caveat is immaterial. I think that the first part of this conclusion is mistaken.

Continue reading →

Section 19 of the Perpetuities Act and the oil and gas lease as a fee simple determinable estate of a profit à prendre

PDF version: Section 19 of the Perpetuities Act and the oil and gas lease as a fee simple determinable estate of a profit à prendre 

Statute commented on: Perpetuities Act, RSA 2000, c P-5.

In a couple of years we will “celebrate” the fortieth anniversary of the Perpetuities Act of 1972, SA 1972, c 121. They may not know it yet, but the wildest celebrations will be heard from those who hold oil and gas leases granted after July 1, 1973 which are still in force. Here’s why. After that date, as each and every oil and gas lease reaches its fortieth birthday, the lessor’s possibility of reverter for terminating the lease for want of production comes to an end; thenceforward the lease can only be terminated for cause (as described in the default clause of the leases) such as the non-payment of royalties, which causes can typically be cured without losing the lease. Lessees will become the effective owners of the oil and gas estate.

Continue reading →

Accounting issues left unresolved in split title litigation

PDF version: Accounting issues left unresolved in split title litigation

Case considered: Anderson v Amoco Canada Oil and Gas Co, 2011 ABCA 268

The Court of Appeal has finally brought an end to the phase gas, split title litigation known under the style of cause of Anderson v Amoco. The Court did so (at the behest of the petroleum owners (the defendants)) under the cover of the drop dead rule of the old Rules of Court. As a result of this decision the accounting issues, one of the key issues in split title litigation which has been around since the Privy Council’s decision in Borys v CPR, [1953] AC 217, will remain unresolved. While this dismissal will bind the particular plaintiffs listed in this litigation it will not preclude disgruntled gas owners from returning to the fray in the future – either individually or as part of a class action. Thus, while the defendants and their lawyers may have cracked open a few bottles of champagne last week to celebrate the end of this long-running litigation I am not sure that the accounting issues related to production from split title lands are going to go away.

Continue reading →