ABLawg

Case Commented On: 1401380 Ontario Limited (Wilderness North Air) v Hydro One Remote Communities Inc, 2025 ONCA 827 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Limiting Contractual Liability for Breaching the Duty of Good Faith

The contractual duty to exercise discretion in good faith applies to every contract, regardless of the parties’ intentions; parties cannot exclude the duty altogether. But what if they do not seek to exclude the duty itself, and instead seek only to limit the consequences of breaching it? Is that distinction legally meaningful? And is it permitted?

This post discusses how the duty to perform in good faith endures on both conceptual and practical grounds as long as there is liability for breaching it, even where that liability is contractually limited.

In 1401380 Ontario Limited (Wilderness North Air) v Hydro One Remote Communities Inc, 2025 ONCA 827 (CanLII), the Ontario Court of Appeal decided that parties may limit the scope of their liability for breach of the duty of good faith, and that doing so does not constitute contracting out of the duty itself.

AlphaBow Again Challenges AER Enforcement Related to Oil and Gas Closure Liabilities During Insolvency

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 23, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, Insolvency, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decisions Commented On: Re AlphaBow Energy Ltd., 2025 ABKB 622 (CanLII) (AlphaBow ABKB); Re AlphaBow Energy Ltd., 2026 ABCA 35 (CanLII) (AlphaBow ABCA)

PDF Version: AlphaBow Again Challenges AER Enforcement Related to Oil and Gas Closure Liabilities During Insolvency

This post comments on two decisions relating to the ongoing insolvency process of AlphaBow Energy Ltd. (AlphaBow). AlphaBow brought challenges to the power of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to require security deposits as a condition for transferring oil and gas licences from AlphaBow’s inventory. AlphaBow was unsuccessful at King’s Bench and then failed to get leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

This post provides some background to AlphaBow’s insolvency, summarizes the two decisions, and concludes with commentary on what AlphaBow’s ongoing insolvency process shows about oil and gas closure liability management and insolvency in Alberta.

The Light Goes Out at the NRCB on Major Recreational Project Reviews

By Shaun Fluker

On February 17, 2026

In Environmental, Land Use, Natural Resources

By: Shaun Fluker

Legislation Commented On: All-season Resorts Act, SA 2024, c A 38.5

PDF Version: The Light Goes Out at the NRCB on Major Recreational Project Reviews

At some point during the last few months of 2025, the Alberta Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) seems to have erased some history on reviewing major recreation and tourism projects in Alberta, by removing from its website several recreational project review decisions the NRCB issued in the early 1990s. This became apparent to me recently, as I prepared for a media interview to discuss the application by Fortress Mountain Holdings Ltd. under the All-season Resorts Act to construct and operate a new commercial and recreational destination in Kananaskis Country at the site of the former Fortress Mountain ski area (see here for some earlier media coverage of this expansive application). This short comment critiques the All-season Resorts Act and the removal of NRCB jurisdiction over major recreational projects.

“Declarations of Aboriginal Title Are Not Discretionary”

By Kent McNeil

On February 11, 2026

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Indigenous, Property, Reconciliation

By: Kent McNeil

Case Commented On: JD Irving, Limited et al v Wolastoqey Nations, 2025 NBCA 129 (CanLII); Wolastoqey Nations v New Brunswick and Canada, et al., 2024 NBKB 203 (CanLII)

PDF Version: “Declarations of Aboriginal Title Are Not Discretionary”

Robert Hamilton has already posted an ABlawg article on the recent New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision in the Wolastoqey Nations case. In it, he does an excellent job of summarizing the issues on the motion to strike the industrial defendants from the proceedings and of critically analyzing the Court of Appeal’s decision. I will therefore focus my commentary on what I regard as another troubling aspect of the decision, namely that a judicial declaration does not necessarily follow from a factual finding of Aboriginal title.

This action was brought by the Wolastoqey Nations against Canada, New Brunswick, and a number of industrial, fee simple landowners who brought the motion to strike to avoid participation in the litigation. On such a motion, the facts alleged in the statement of claim are assumed to be established. The question was thus limited to whether these landowners were proper parties.

Untangling Received Law in Alberta

By Joe Sellman

On February 9, 2026

In Law Reform, Legal Research

By: Joe Sellman

Report Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Residential Tenancies: Distress for Rent Final Report 122 (pending publication)

PDF Version: Untangling Received Law in Alberta

What would you think if I told you that Alberta has inherited legislation from England that remains in effect today, and continues to impact the state of the law in this province?

As part of the Alberta Law Reform Institute’s (ALRI) Residential Tenancies Act project, we have been working on a standalone report considering whether the remedy of distress for rent should be abolished in residential tenancies, and if not abolished whether the law should be codified (see Issue 8 and Issue 9 in Alberta Law Reform Institute, Residential Tenancies Act: General Issues, Issue Paper 6 (2025) at 52-55).