ABLawg

Luciano Lliuya vs. RWE AG: Corporate Climate Liability Through the Lens of the Polluter Pays Principle

On August 19, 2025

Case Commented On: Luciano Lliuya v RWE AG (2025) Hamm Higher Regional Court, 5 U 15/17 OLG Hamm / Case No. 2 O 285/15 Essen Regional Court (see here for an unofficial translation of the decision)

PDF Version: Luciano Lliuya vs. RWE AG: Corporate Climate Liability Through the Lens of the Polluter Pays Principle

This post briefly examines the recent and long-awaited decision rendered by the German Higher Regional Court of Hamm in the Lliuya case. This judicial decision is the first to recognize the potential liability of a large greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter from the energy sector for actual climate-related risks. The decision could have significant practical implications for other large GHG emitters, which have contributed to the climate crisis over the last decades while profiting from their polluting activities. The Lliuya decision signals that legal accountability of carbon majors for the climate-related damage is increasingly likely, and large GHG emitters – not only in Germany but also here in Canada and elsewhere – should consider factoring the risk of legal liability into their business models in the future.

The Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2024/2025: The Sequoia Settlement Hits the Orphan Inventory

By Drew Yewchuk

On August 18, 2025

In Energy, Environmental, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Matter Commented On: Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2024/2025

PDF Version: The Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2024/2025: The Sequoia Settlement Hits the Orphan Inventory

On July 15, 2025 the Orphan Well Association (OWA) released their Annual Report for 2024/2025. OWA annual reports provide insight into Alberta’s orphan oil and gas site problem and the pace at which the problem is being addressed (see the ABlawgs on past OWA annual reports: 2022/2023 and 2023/2024). The OWA annual report is separate from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER)’s annual liability management performance reports, which ABlawg covered for 2022 and 2023. This blog summarizes the current state and foreseeable future of Alberta’s current orphan oil and gas site problem.

Canada’s Internationally Wrongful Climate Acts

By Adebayo Majekolagbe

On August 15, 2025

In Climate Change, International Law

By: Adebayo Majekolagbe

Decision Commented On: Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (2025)

PDF Version: Canada’s Internationally Wrongful Climate Acts

Over the past decade, litigants—mainly young people—have petitioned domestic courts worldwide to assess if governments are doing enough to combat climate change. Courts in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America mostly responded positively, issuing directives for more ambitious climate action. Although similar cases have been brought before Canadian courts, no case has succeeded on its merits in compelling federal or provincial governments to raise the level of their climate commitments. This situation might soon change, especially with the recent landmark advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

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

By Nigel Bankes

On August 1, 2025

In Natural Resources, Property

By: Nigel Bankes

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.