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.

Playing Games with the Constitution: The Saskatchewan First Act

By: Nigel Bankes, Andrew Leach, and Martin Olszynski

Matter commented on: Bill 88: An Act to Assert Saskatchewan’s Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction and to Confirm the Autonomy of Saskatchewan

PDF Version: Playing Games with the Constitution: The Saskatchewan First Act

On November 1, 2022, Bronwyn Eyre, as Minister of Energy and Resources and Minister of Justice and Attorney General, introduced Bill 88, The Saskatchewan First Act, for First Reading in Saskatchewan’s Legislative Assembly. Bill 88 is comprised of a lengthy preamble and three separate parts. Part 1 is entitled “Preliminary Matters and Constitutional Assertion”. Part 2 proposes amendments to the Constitution of Saskatchewan and Part 3 establishes an Economic Impact Assessment Tribunal. Continue reading →

The Milk and St. Mary Apportionment: A Next Step?

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter commented on: International St Mary-Milk Rivers Study Board, Work Plan for the International St Mary-Milk Rivers Study, June 2022, released  July 28, 2022

PDF Version: The Milk and St. Mary Apportionment: A Next Step?

This post examines the most recent development in efforts to improve the ability of both Canada and the United States to access its water entitlement to each of the Milk and St. Mary Rivers under the terms of an apportionment order made by the International Joint Commission (IJC) under the Boundary Waters Treaty more than a century ago. Continue reading →

Novel Form of Agreement to Reserve Surface Rights Payments

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: Schnell v Stene (Heidinger Estate), 2022 SKQB 146 (CanLII)

PDF version: Novel Form of Agreement to Reserve Surface Rights Payments

It is not uncommon for a vendor of agricultural lands in western Canada to seek to ensure that the vendor will continue to receive the benefit of surface rights payments payable under the terms of surface rights leases or right of entry orders. Perhaps the most common technique to achieve this result is by way of an agreement to assign rents. This will be effective so long as one is confident that such an agreement creates an interest in land that can be protected by way of caveat. In some jurisdictions legislation deems such an agreement to give rise to an interest in land, (see, for example, Law of Property Act, RSA 2000, c L-7 at s 63(1)(b)) whereas in other jurisdictions the point may be more debatable: (e.g. Alberta  prior to the 1985 amendment to the Law of Property Act: see Webster v Brown, 2004 ABQB 321 (CanLII) and Canadian Crude Separators Inc. v Mychaluk, 1997 CanLII 14841 (AB QB), [1998] 1 WWR 545. Continue reading →

The Rhetoric of Property and Immunity in the Majority Opinion in the Impact Assessment Reference

By: Nigel Bankes & Andrew Leach

Opinion Commented On: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2022 ABCA 165 (CanLII).

PDF Version: The Rhetoric of Property and Immunity in the Majority Opinion in the Impact Assessment Reference

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released its opinion in Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2022 ABCA 165 (CanLII). A majority of the Court found the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c. 28, s 1 [IAA] to be unconstitutional. Our colleague Martin Olszynski has already summarized the majority’s approach and some of the doctrinal difficulties therein.

In this post, we consider in more detail the majority’s lengthy discussion of the historical evolution of the resource rights of the prairie provinces from the creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan as provinces in 1905, through to the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements (NRTAs) of 1930, culminating with the adoption of s 92A (the Resources Amendment) in 1982. Continue reading →

If A Land Claims Agreement Says That You Must Resolve The Dispute Through Arbitration, Then That’s What You Must Do

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: If A Land Claims Agreement Says That You Must Resolve The Dispute Through Arbitration, Then That’s What You Must Do

Case Commented On: Newfoundland and Labrador v Nunatsiavut Government, 2022 NLCA 19 (CanLII)

If a land claims agreement says that you must resolve the dispute through arbitration, then that’s what you must do. That’s the blunt (and perhaps obvious) conclusion of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal in this decision involving the terms of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (Agreement). 

There could be little doubt that the Agreement did in fact stipulate that a dispute of this nature (a dispute relating to the determination and sharing of revenues from the Voisey’s Bay project) must be referred to arbitration (see the combined effect of ss 7.6.9 and 21.9.1of the Agreement, as discussed at paras 34 -52). But in this case, the Nunatsiavut government had submitted the dispute to the provincial superior court, and the provincial government had failed to take any objection to that course of action; until it lost at trial (Nunatsiavut Government v Newfoundland and Labrador, 2020 NLSC 129 (CanLII))and the matter went on appeal to the Court of Appeal. Continue reading →