Category Archives: Property

Sometimes it is Completely Irrelevant Whether or not a Royalty Interest Amounts to an Interest in Land

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: Enerplus Corporation v Harvest Operations Corp, 2021 ABQB 634 (CanLII), appeal dismissed, 2023 ABKB 482 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Sometimes it is Completely Irrelevant Whether or not a Royalty Interest Amounts to an Interest in Land

Harvest (70%), Orlen (15%), and Petrus (15%) are the working interest owners of certain oil and gas properties. Under the terms of a farmout agreement (in the form of the 1997 Farmout and Royalty Procedure of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen (CAPL)), back in the chain of title, Enerplus holds a gross overriding royalty interest (GORR) in the 70% interest currently held by Harvest. The terms of the GORR provided that: Continue reading →

The Basics of Alberta’s Torrens Title System: Three Cases

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Nigel Bankes

Cases commented on: St Pierre v Schenk, 2020 ABCA 382 (CanLII); Calgary (City) v Teulon, 2021 ABQB 388 (CanLII); St Pierre v North Alberta Land Registry District (Registrar), 2023 ABCA 153 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Basics of Alberta’s Torrens Title System: Three Cases

These three decisions about the basic elements of Alberta’s Torrens title system cover a wide range of issues. The two Alberta Court of Appeal decisions – one a reserved judgment – arise from the same set of facts, which feature a case of forgery. The first decision looks at whether the registration of a caveat will cure the caveator’s defective title, and the second discusses the Registrar’s liability for the caveator’s loss of an interest in land. The Court of King’s Bench decision stems from facts that are less straight-forward. It considers three statutory exceptions to the principle of indefeasibility that underlies Alberta’s Torrens title system: prior certificate of title, misdescription, and one of the listed exceptions in section 61 of the Land Titles Act, RSA 2000, c L-4 (LTA) (an alleged public highway). Continue reading →

Environmental Obligations Enforced Between Private Parties: The Extension of Redwater

By: Jassmine Girgis

Case commented on: Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2023 ABKB 109 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Environmental Obligations Enforced Between Private Parties: The Extension of Redwater

The Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2023 ABKB 109 (CanLII) (Qualex) decision extends the principles from the Supreme Court’s decision in Orphan Well Association, Alberta Energy Regulator v Grant Thornton Limited and ATB Financial, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (Redwater) to a private dispute outside insolvency proceedings. Continue reading →

Another Trap for Unwary Alberta Residential Tenants: Short, Rigid Appeal Periods

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Commented On: Afolabi v Wexcel Realty Management Ltd, 2023 ABKB 68 (CanLII)

 PDF Version: Another Trap for Unwary Alberta Residential Tenants: Short, Rigid Appeal Periods

I have written before about the difficulties tenants face when trying to exercise their right to appeal orders granted by the Tenancy Dispute Officers (TDOs) of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS); see here and here. Those posts only briefly mention the timeline for filing an appeal, which is 30 days from the filing of the RTDRS Order in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta according to section 23(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Alta Reg 98/2006 (Regulation). I have also written before about some other fundamental deficiencies in that Regulation (here and here), as has my colleague, Shaun Fluker (here). This decision by Justice Michael A. Marion provides an opportunity to discuss the trap for unwary tenants caused by the appeal timeline provisions in the Regulation and by related provisions in the RTDRS Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).  Continue reading →

There’s No Place Like Home: Why the Dower Act Remains Relevant

By: Laura Buckingham

Case Commented On: James v Belanger, 2023 ABKB 34 (CanLII)

PDF Version: There’s No Place Like Home: Why the Dower Act Remains Relevant

Editors’ Note: February 6 to 10 is Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Week at the University of Calgary. We will be publishing a number of posts this week that touch on EDI issues. This first post deals with dower rights and the inequalities experienced by unmarried spouses. For more on the Faculty of Law’s commitment to taking action on EDI issues, see here.

James v Belanger, 2023 ABKB 34 is interesting because of something that isn’t mentioned in the decision. The case is not about the Dower Act, RSA 2000, c D-15. If the Dower Act applied, the whole dispute might have been avoided. A retired man would be able to stay in the home he shared with his partner for more than 15 years. Continue reading →