ABLawg

Case Commented On: PrairieSky Roy2alty Ltd v Yangarra Resources Ltd, 2025 ABCA 240 (CanLII)

PDF Version: When Is An Interest In Land A Legal (As Opposed To An Equitable) Interest?

The principal issue in this case by the time the matter reached the Court of Appeal was the question of whether a gross overriding royalty (GORR) carved out of an Alberta Crown petroleum and natural gas (png) lease was a legal or an equitable interest in land. Justice Michel Bourque at trial (2023 ABQB 11) concluded that the GORR in question was an interest in land (applying Bank of Montreal v Dynex Petroleum Ltd, 2002 SCC 7 aff’g 1999 ABCA 363). Furthermore, Justic Bourque went on to conclude that the GORR was a legal interest in land. The GORR was therefore binding on Yangarra as the successor in interest to the Crown png lease, even though Yangarra had no notice of PrairieSky’s GORR. As a result, Justice Bourque did not need to consider Yangarra’s alternative argument to the effect that if the GORR were only an equitable interest in land Yangarra was entitled to be treated as equity’s darling (i.e. the bona fide purchaser of the legal estate without notice (actual or constructive) of the prior outstanding equitable interest (i.e. the GORR)). The Crown png lease originally granted in 1979 was held by a number of parties in succession over the years until 2011, when Home Quarter Resources (HQR) granted the GORR to Range Royalty (the HQ GORR or the 2011 GORR). The lessee’s interest subsequently became vested in Yangarra, while Range Royalty’s interest became vested in PrairieSky. I commented extensively on the trial judgment here and I refer the reader to that comment for a more detailed summary of the facts.

Who’s Afraid of the Proposed First Nations Clean Water Act?

By Nigel Bankes

On July 17, 2025

In Aboriginal, Environmental, Indigenous, Natural Resources, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes and Martin Olszynski

Matter Commented On: Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, First Session, Forty-fourth Parliament, 70-71 Elizabeth II – 1-2-3 Charles III, 2021-2022-2023-2024

PDF Version: Who’s Afraid of the Proposed First Nations Clean Water Act?

On June 30, Alberta’s Minister of Environment and Protected Areas and Ontario’s Minister of Environment Conservation and Parks penned a remarkable letter to their federal counterpart, Ms. Julie Dabrusin, Minister of Environment and Climate Change (for Alberta’s Press Release see here). The joint letter asserted that “Canada is poised to be an economic superpower, but achieving that potential depends on strong, constitutionally grounded provincial authority over resource development and environmental management.” With that as the premise, the two Ministers went on to indicate that they had a number of “urgent requests” that they would like to discuss “immediately” with their federal counterpart, namely:

Repealing the Impact Assessment Act and the Physical Activities Regulations.
Repealing the Clean Electricity Regulations.
Repealing the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and associated regulations.
Amending the Species at Risk Act to respect the constitutional jurisdiction of the
Suspending the proposed Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulation.
Undertaking to refrain from reintroducing Bill C-61: An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater, and related infrastructure on First Nation lands.

New Standards (or is it a Book Ban?) in Alberta K-12 Schools

By Shaun Fluker

On July 15, 2025

In Administrative Law, Education, Equality, Youth and the Law

By: Shaun Fluker

Order Commented On: Ministerial Order 030/2025 (Education and Childcare)

PDF Version: New Standards (or is it a Book Ban?) in Alberta K-12 Schools

On July 4, 2025, Education and Childcare Minister Demetrios Nicolaides issued Ministerial Order 030/2025 prohibiting the inclusion of library materials with prescribed sexual content in K-12 schools. The Minister’s statement that this is about school standards and not a book ban, as reported by CBC News here, is simply not reconcilable with the written terms of his Order, as explained in this post.

How Canada’s Federal and Provincial Governments Collaborate Against the Public Right to Access Environmental Information

By Drew Yewchuk

On July 10, 2025

In Access to Information, Environmental, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: How Canada’s Federal and Provincial Governments Collaborate Against the Public Right to Access Environmental Information

Secrecy enables government messaging control and defeats democratic accountability. The right to information is foundational to democratic participation in the conduct of public affairs. When journalists and academics cannot access information on an issue, that information is not conveyed to the public, and the public cannot meaningfully participate or assess government decision-making on the issue. This situation is common with environmental damage – the government permits and enables environmental damage but misleads the public into believing that the environment is being protected. This is the worst outcome for the protection of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, but the ideal outcome for a governing party, who takes credit for the economic benefits of the environmentally damaging project and avoids any criticism by keeping the public unaware of the environmental damage.

Recent Developments on Protection of Critical Habitat under the Species at Risk Act and Implications for Coal in Alberta

By Shaun Fluker

On July 7, 2025

In Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Shaun Fluker and Drew Yewchuk

Decisions Commented on: Federation of Nova Scotia Naturalists v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2025 FC 983; Kebaowek First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 472

PDF Version: Recent Developments on Protection of Critical Habitat under the Species at Risk Act and Implications for Coal in Alberta

This post briefly summarizes two recent federal court decisions relating to critical habitat under the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (SARA). These decisions add to a long list of federal court decisions adjudicating the interpretation of SARA provisions, resulting from litigation initiated by environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) seeking judicial orders that force federal Ministers to interpret SARA in accordance with its purpose, implement SARA without undue delay, or frankly take any measures whatsoever under SARA to protect listed species at risk and their critical habitat (ABlawg has commented on many of these decisions, see for example two 2024 posts written by Drew Yewchuk here and here). Federal officials have impaired the effectiveness of SARA with peculiar interpretations that obstruct the application of legislation’s protection measures for species at risk. While the two decisions commented on here relate to species at risk in Ontario and Nova Scotia, both decisions will impact the application of SARA in Alberta and likely have implications for coal exploration and development along the Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains and UCP government’s policy push to open up the Eastern Slopes to coal under the coal industry modernization initiative.