Category: Property Page 8 of 34

By: Laura Buckingham

PDF Version: Property Division for Common-law Couples: The Problem, the Project, and the Proposals

Report Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Property Division: Common Law Couples and Adult Interdependent Partners, Report for Discussion 30

The Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) is considering how to improve the law of property division for common-law partners. It recently published Property Division: Common Law Couples and Adult Interdependent Partners, Report for Discussion 30. The report reviews the issues with the existing law and makes preliminary recommendations for reform. ALRI is now seeking feedback on its preliminary recommendations, before it makes final recommendations to the government of Alberta.

Reconciling the Application of the Interjurisdictional Immunity Doctrine to Aboriginal Title and Lands Reserved

By Jennifer Koshan

On October 17, 2017

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Property

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Reconciling the Application of the Interjurisdictional Immunity Doctrine to Aboriginal Title and Lands Reserved

Case Commented On: McCaleb v Rose, 2017 BCCA 318 (CanLII)

It is a challenge to teach the interjurisdictional immunity (IJI) doctrine these days, in part because the Supreme Court of Canada has been sending mixed, incomplete, and frankly off the cuff messages about the use of this doctrine. IJI has predominantly been applied so as to render provincial laws inapplicable to federal works, undertakings and other federally regulated persons and entities when they impair the core of the federal power over those entities (although the Supreme Court of Canada left the door open for IJI to apply to federal laws that impair provincial entities in Canada (Attorney General) v PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44 (CanLII)). The Court signalled in Canadian Western Bank v Alberta, 2007 SCC 22 (CanLII), that generally the use of the doctrine should be minimized since it is redolent of more rigid approaches to constitutional law that favour “watertight compartments” rather than the more modern cooperative federalism approach. Canadian Western Bank tells us that IJI issues are to be analysed only if the case can’t be resolved on the basis of validity or paramountcy, although the Court has often neglected that progression in cases subsequent to Canadian Western Bank (see e.g. Quebec (Attorney General) v Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, 2010 SCC 39 (CanLII)).

GRTAs, Patch Agreements, Indefeasible Title and Collapse Orders

By Nigel Bankes

On September 29, 2017

In Oil & Gas, Property

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: GRTAs, Patch Agreements, Indefeasible Title and Collapse Orders

Case Commented On: Chesterworld Holdings Ltd v Computershare Trust Company of Canada, 2017 ABQB 43 (CanLII)

This decision involves the interpretation of a will from 1949 as well as the validity of a gross royalty trust agreement (GRTA) and a subsequent patch agreement. Justice Park concluded that the patch agreement was incapable of saving the GRTA because it was executed by the incorrect parties (or by the correct parties but not in their correct capacity). The case may call into question the efficacy of other patch agreements that were intended to revive or extend GRTAs affected by the decision in Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada v Hetherington, 1989 ABCA 113 (CanLII).

An Operator of Gas Processing Facilities Does Not Have a Possessory Lien Under the Possessory Liens Act

By Nigel Bankes

On September 20, 2017

In Oil & Gas, Property

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: An Operator of Gas Processing Facilities Does Not Have a Possessory Lien Under the Possessory Liens Act

Case Commented On: Cansearch Resources Ltd v Regent Resources Ltd, 2017 ABQB 535 (CanLII)

Cansearch and Regent jointly owned the Joffre Facility under the term of an agreement for the construction, ownership and operation (CO & O) of that facility (2008). Cansearch was appointed as operator. The CO & O agreement afforded Cansearch as operator an operator’s lien (cl 602(a)) in the following terms:

Effective from the Effective Date, Operator shall have a lien and charge, which is first and prior to any other lien, charge, mortgage or other security interest, with respect to the Function Unit Participations of each Owner in the Facility and such Owner’s share of Facility Products, to secure payment of such Owner’s proportionate share of the costs and expenses incurred by Operator for the Joint Account.

Cansearch never registered its Operator’s Lien pursuant to the Personal Property Security Act, RSA 2000, c P-7 (PPSA).

The Effect of Well Abandonment and Reclamation Obligations for the Valuation of Matrimonial Property

By Nigel Bankes

On August 10, 2017

In Environmental, Family, Oil & Gas, Property

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Effect of Well Abandonment and Reclamation Obligations for the Valuation of Matrimonial Property

Case Commented On: Walker v Walker, 2017 SKQB 195 (CanLII)

Judicial decisions on the legal nature of abandonment and reclamation obligations may arise in the strangest of ways. Take this matrimonial property case, for example, in which Mr. Walker (Darcy) was seeking to argue that his assets should be discounted on the basis that a small oil and gas company (Outback) that he controlled had net abandonment and reclamation liabilities. Part of the challenge that he faced in making this argument was of course that the liabilities in question were the liabilities of the corporation. While a director or controlling mind of a corporation might ordinarily take some comfort from this state of affairs, in this case counsel for Darcy tried to suggest that his client would inevitably face personal liability under the terms of Saskatchewan’s The Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2010, SS 2010, c E-10.22 [EMPA] and The Oil and Gas Conservation Act, RSS 1978, c O-2 [OGCA] and s 59 of The Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations, 2012, RRS c O-2 Reg 6 [OGCR]. Actually the argument was even stranger insofar as Mrs. Walker (Becky) was also a director of the company (Outback) and thus might face the same liability should Darcy be correct.