ABLawg

By: Kyle Gardiner

PDF Version: The Cost of Cohabitation Agreements: Considering Property Division Laws for Unmarried Cohabitants

Report Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Property Division: Living Together Before Marriage, Report for Discussion No. 31

On September 29, 2017, the Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) released Property Division: Common Law Couples and Adult Interdependent Partners, Report for Discussion No. 30, addressing Alberta’s lack of statutory law dealing with property division for unmarried cohabitants. That report recommended that property division rules should apply to adult interdependent partners as defined in the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act, SA 2002, c A-4.5 (AIRA) (i.e. “common-law partners”), and that those rules should be based on the Matrimonial Property Act, RSA 2000, c M-8 (MPA) — the statute that governs property division upon marriage breakdown in Alberta. This recommendation necessitated a further question answered by ALRI’s Report for Discussion 31: how should laws of property division deal with couples who first cohabit and later marry?

Property Division: Living Together Before Marriage

By Genevieve Tremblay-McCaig

On November 27, 2017

In Family, Property

By: Genevieve Tremblay-McCaig

PDF Version: Property Division: Living Together Before Marriage

Report Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Property Division: Living Together before Marriage, Report for Discussion 31

The Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) is considering changes to property division rules for spouses who live together before marriage. It recently published Property Division: Living Together before Marriage, Report for Discussion 31. Report 31 follows a separate report for discussion on property division for common law couples and adult interdependent partners. Report 31 covers the related but distinct issue of premarital cohabitation and property division. Before it makes final recommendations to the Alberta government, ALRI is seeking feedback on the proposals below.

Balancing Pool Must Fulfil its Statutory Obligations

By Nigel Bankes

On November 24, 2017

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Balancing Pool Must Fulfil its Statutory Obligations

Case Commented On: ENMAX PPA Management Inc v Balancing Pool, 2017 ABQB 718 (CanLII)

In this decision Justice Karen Horner has directed the Balancing Pool (BP) to fulfil its statutory obligations and reach a decision as to whether ENMAX had validly terminated its Keephills Power Purchase Arrangement (PPA) on the basis of the change of law clause in the PPA.

Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership v Yangarra Resources Ltd, 2017 ABCA 378: Fraud and Limitation of Liability Clauses

By Jassmine Girgis

On November 23, 2017

In Contracts, Oil & Gas

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership v Yangarra Resources Ltd, 2017 ABCA 378: Fraud and Limitation of Liability Clauses

Case Commented On: Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership v Yangarra Resources Ltd, 2017 ABCA 378 (CanLII)

Introduction

This is a case about the legal test for civil fraud and whether a limitation of liability clause in a contract can and should exclude liability for fraud. The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the summary judgment and sent it to trial (see earlier Ablawg posts about lower court decisions here and here).

A court can only find fraud after weighing the evidence and applying the proper legal test. Assuming there is fraud, the court will then have to determine whether a proper interpretation of the exclusion of liability clause excludes fraud. If so, can a party that has engaged in fraud be allowed the benefit of the clause? In my opinion, it cannot, as doing so would be contrary to public policy and it would breach the duties of honest performance and good faith articulated by the Supreme Court in Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 (CanLII).

Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited: What’s at Stake in Redwater

By Fenner Stewart

On November 15, 2017

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Oil & Gas

By: Fenner L. Stewart

PDF Version: Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited: What’s at Stake in Redwater

Case Commented On: Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124 (CanLII) (leave granted)

I. Introduction

This week, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) granted leave to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to hear its appeal of Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited (Redwater) (for more on the Redwater decision, see Nigel Bankes’ post). The Court of Appeal’s decision in Redwater has punched a hole in the AER’s program for ensuring that licencees of oil and gas wells have the capital necessary to satisfy their reclamation and abandonment obligations. The ruling effectively allows trustees in bankruptcy to disclaim worthless assets (e.g., non-producing wells where the abandonment process is not yet complete), while selling valuable assets (e.g., producing wells). Redwater grants secured creditors the best chance possible to be compensated from the bankrupt’s assets, while guaranteeing that Alberta’s oil and gas industry (and potentially taxpayers) pay the cost for the bankrupt’s reclamation and abandonment obligations. As things stand today, if Redwater is not reversed, even more wells will be orphaned, adding to the already alarming number on the books of the Orphan Well Association (OWA).