Category: Administrative Law Page 39 of 42

In an unusual decision the ERCB has asserted its jurisdiction to determine the validity of an oil and gas lease. While the Board has in recent years been forced to make rulings on complex questions of property law such as the competing rights of coal owners and natural gas owners to coal bed methane (In re Bearspaw Petroleum, EUB Decision 2007-24) as well as the competing interests of bitumen producers and natural gas producers (Alberta Energy Company Ltd. v. Goodwell Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2003 ABCA 277, reviewing EUB Decision 2000-21) this is, so far as I am aware, the first reasoned decision of the Board in which it has passed on the validity of an oil and gas lease. Desoto’s application in the Court of Queen’s Bench for a declaration as to the validity of the leases was pending at the time of the Board’s decision.

“Improper Jumps in Reasoning” on Judicial Disqualification says Court of Appeal

By Alastair Lucas, Q.C.

On July 17, 2008

In Administrative Law, Municipal Law

Cases Considered: Boardwalk REIT LLP v. Edmonton (City), 2008 ABCA 176

PDF Version: “Improper Jumps in Reasoning” on Judicial Disqualification says Court of Appeal

Enough already! That’s the Alberta Court of Appeal’s message on judicial disqualification applications. The court is not saying, “leave potential bias issues to us.” It is merely reinforcing the time honoured “reasonable apprehension of bias” principle. But there is a twist in this case. In fact, there are two.

Back on track to socio-ecological ruin: Kearl oil sands project re-authorized

By Shaun Fluker

On June 16, 2008

In Administrative Law, Environmental, Natural Resources

Cases Considered: Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited v. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development et al, 2008 FC 598, Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302,

PDF Version: Back on track to socio-ecological ruin: Kearl oil sands project re-authorized

My initial post on the Kearl project (see Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin) was accurate after all. Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s decision in Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302, that held the Kearl joint panel breached section 34 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37, was simply a brief foray into environmental bliss. On June 6, 2008, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans re-issued the requisite authorization under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, to Imperial Oil, reportedly on identical terms and conditions as set out in the original authorization (see my previous post Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization for more discussion on the nullification of the initial authorization).

Money attracts procedural fairness: The case of the overbilling doctor

By Shaun Fluker

On June 13, 2008

In Administrative Law

Cases Considered: Searles v. Alberta (Health and Wellness), 2008 ABQB 307

PDF Version: Money attracts procedural fairness: The case of the overbilling doctor

Government compensation payable to physicians in Alberta is differentiated under the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan based upon the type of service provided: in short, some service categories pay better than others for physicians. In 2002 Dr. Gordon Searles received notice from Alberta Health and Wellness that his billings to the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan were being reviewed. This review led to a reassessment under section 18 of the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-20, which provides the Minister of Health and Wellness with authority to reassess physicians’ billings on select grounds including where the Minister is of the opinion that “the total amount of benefits paid for service was, in the circumstances, greater compensation to the practitioner for that service than it should have been.” In this case, the Minister’s reassessment (via her delegate) required Dr. Searles to repay $985,777.09 having concluded upon review of his billings that he was overcompensated. The reassessment was based upon the Minister’s conclusion that between April 2000 and February 2004 Dr. Searles’ billing submissions were calculated on the provision of a service category with a higher billing rate than the actual service Dr. Searles had administered to his clients. Dr. Searles subsequently applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench to have the Minister’s reassessment quashed on judicial review for procedural unfairness.

The Incredible Shrinking Jurisdiction of the Alberta Utilities Commission

By Alice Woolley

On June 11, 2008

In Administrative Law, Energy

Cases Considered: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board) 2008 ABCA 200

PDF Version: The Incredible Shrinking Jurisdiction of the Alberta Utilities Commission

Introduction

In 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the then Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (“Board”) (now the Alberta Utilities Commission (“Commission”)) had no jurisdiction to allocate proceeds of disposition on the sale of a utility asset, even to ameliorate harm to customers that might arise from that sale. The Court held that while the Board has some jurisdiction to impose conditions on the sale of an asset – to, for example, give “due consideration to any new economic data anticipated as a result of the sale” (ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board) 2006 SCC 4 at para. 81 (“AGPL”)) – that power did not allow the Board to “confiscate” any net gains enjoyed by a utility upon disposition.

Category: Administrative Law Page 39 of 42

The ERCB asserts its jurisdiction to determine the validity of an oil and gas lease

“Improper Jumps in Reasoning” on Judicial Disqualification says Court of Appeal

Back on track to socio-ecological ruin: Kearl oil sands project re-authorized

Money attracts procedural fairness: The case of the overbilling doctor

The Incredible Shrinking Jurisdiction of the Alberta Utilities Commission