ABLawg

Case commented on: Alberta Information and Privacy Commissioner v United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2013 SCC 62 (“AIPC v UFCW”)

This case out of Alberta has been the subject of other ABlawg posts (see here and here), and now the Supreme Court of Canada has made its views known on the constitutionality of Alberta’s privacy legislation. Clearly, the issues that were addressed were of interest across Canada as there were several interveners in the case, including the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario, the Privacy Commissioners of Canada, Ontario and British Columbia, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and labour and business groups.

Linking the California and Québec Emissions Trading Schemes

By Rolandas Vaiciulis

On December 3, 2013

In Climate Change

PDF Version: Linking the California and Québec Emissions Trading Schemes

Agreement Commented On: Agreement Between the California Air Resources Board and the Gouvernement Du Québec Concerning the Harmonization and Integration of Cap-and-Trade Programs for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In late September 2013, California and Québec signed an agreement to link their carbon emissions trading schemes effective January 1, 2014. This is the first linkage under the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) – a regional collaboration between British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, and California to establish a carbon reduction and trading scheme that is intended to produce an overall 15% reduction from 2005 level carbon emissions by 2020 amongst the participating jurisdictions. (For more detail on the WCI see here). Alberta is notably absent from the WCI.

Limitations Issues in Oil and Gas Royalty Litigation

By Nigel Bankes

On December 2, 2013

In Oil & Gas

PDF Version: Limitations Issues in Oil and Gas Royalty Litigation

Case commented on: Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Jensen Resources Ltd., 2013 ABCA 399

This case involves a geologist’s gross overriding royalty (GORR). The principal issue at trial (see earlier post here) was the question of whether or not the royalty continued as against the property in question when the Crown issued oil sands leases for the oil sands rights in place of the earlier petroleum natural gas leases which were in force when the royalties crystallized. The trial judge held that the royalty did continue against these new leases and the Court of Appeal has confirmed that part of the award.

Judgment Handed Down in a Complex Petroleum and Natural Gas Lease Case

By Nigel Bankes

On November 29, 2013

In Oil & Gas

PDF Version: Judgment Handed Down in a Complex Petroleum and Natural Gas Lease Case

Case commented on: Stewart Estate v TAQA North Ltd, 2013 ABQB 691

This lengthy (121 page plus appendices) and well-reasoned decision will be essential reading for members of the oil and gas bar in Alberta. Justice Barbara Romaine offers guidance on a number of issues including the importance of having all relevant parties before the Court when seeking a declaration as to lease validity, limitations, the interpretation of the term “lack of or intermittent market” and the term “any cause whatsoever beyond the Lessee’s reasonable control”, and the measure of damages where a lessee produces on a dead lease. Given the length of the decision (much of which is taken up with a careful review of the testimony of expert witnesses) I will limit this post to the above legal questions. There are, however, a number of other issues discussed in the decision that this post does not deal with (e.g. estoppel, leave and licence, champerty and maintenance, etc).

Read More

A Stay of Proceedings and Endangered Species at the Environmental Appeals Board

By Shaun Fluker

On November 28, 2013

In Environmental, Protection of Species

PDF Version: A Stay of Proceedings and Endangered Species at the Environmental Appeals Board

Decision commented on: Hanson and Lindberg v Director, Northern Region, Operations Division, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, re: County of St. Paul (07 November 2013), Appeal Nos. 13-005 and 006-ID1 (AEAB).

This is a decision on preliminary matters by the Alberta Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) concerning an approval issued by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) under the Water Act, RSA 2000 c W-3 to fill a wetland in the County of St. Paul. The EAB hearing on the merits of the approval will be heard in January 2014. Before the EAB in this matter was a request by the Appellants for a stay of the approval pending the merit hearing. The EAB grants the stay, and I will comment on that here. I also note this decision for its discussion on how the federal Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (SARA) applies to this case – keeping in mind SARA is federal legislation but does have some application within provinces and thus it is of ongoing interest to observe how SARA is considered and applied by provincial authorities.

Supreme Court of Canada Expresses Its Opinion on Alberta Privacy Case

Linking the California and Québec Emissions Trading Schemes

Limitations Issues in Oil and Gas Royalty Litigation

Judgment Handed Down in a Complex Petroleum and Natural Gas Lease Case

A Stay of Proceedings and Endangered Species at the Environmental Appeals Board