ABLawg - - Page 313

Issuance of a Notice of Abandonment under Clause 1201 of CAPL is an Attempt to Exercise a “Right to Remedy” within the Meaning of the Typical Stay Provisions of a Receivership Order

On September 13, 2012

PDF version: Issuance of a notice of abandonment under clause 1201 of CAPL is an attempt to exercise a “right to remedy” within the meaning of the typical stay provisions of a Receivership Order

Case Commented On: Baytex Energy Ltd. v Sterling Eagle Petroleum Corporation, 2012 ABQB 539

The Facts

Baytex and Sterling held 50% working interests in certain properties by way of various agreements of 1995 and 1996. The properties were also subject to the terms of the CAPL Operating Procedure. There were a number of producing wells on the joint lands and four non-producing wells. Sterling was placed in receivership in June 2011 and the terms of the Receivership Order were brought to the attention of Baytex in August 2011. Revenues from the producing wells continued to be paid to the Receiver. The Order, conventionally, provided that:

The letter decisions of the Energy Resources Conservation Board

By Nigel Bankes

On September 6, 2012

In Administrative Law, Natural Resources

PDF version: The letter decisions of the Energy Resources Conservation Board

Decision commented on: Reasons for July 17, 2012 Decision on Notice of Question of Constitutional Law, Osum Oil Sands Corp., Taiga Project, August 24, 2012.

In a letter decision of August 24, 2012 the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB or Board) decided that it lacks the jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Crown in right of Alberta had discharged its duty to consult and accommodate the Cold Lake First Nation (CLFN) with respect to the impacts of a proposed SAGD bitumen project (the Taiga project).

Who decides if the Crown has met its duty to consult and accommodate?

By Nigel Bankes

On September 6, 2012

In Aboriginal, Administrative Law, Constitutional, Natural Resources

PDF version: Who decides if the Crown has met its duty to consult and accommodate?

Decision commented on: Reasons for July 17, 2012 Decision on Notice of Question of Constitutional Law, Osum Oil Sands Corp., Taiga Project, August 24, 2012.

In a letter decision of August 24, 2012 (hereafter LD) the ERCB decided that it lacks the jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Crown in right of Alberta had discharged its duty to consult and accommodate the Cold Lake First Nation (CLFN) with respect to the impacts of a proposed SAGD (steam assisted gravity drainage) in situ bitumen project (the Taiga Project).

Discuss: Stay and Appeal Issues in the Alberta Arbitration Act

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On September 6, 2012

In Arbitration

PDF version: Discuss: Stay and Appeal Issues in the Alberta Arbitration Act

Report commented on: Arbitration Act: Stay and Appeal Issues (Report for Discussion 24)

The Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) has just published Arbitration Act: Stay and Appeal Issues (Report for Discussion 24). In this 44-page Report, ALRI explores procedural issues arising out of the Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43, concerning partial stays of court proceedings under section 7(5) and appeals to the Queen’s Bench under section 44, and very important questions about the role of arbitral appeals more generally. The Report explains the issues, describes their context and asks for input about how best to fix the difficulties identified.

In Memoriam: The Law Society of Alberta Code of Professional Conduct, 1995-2011 (1995 Code)

By Alice Woolley

On September 4, 2012

In Ethics and the Legal Profession, Legal Education

PDF version: In Memoriam: The Law Society of Alberta Code of Professional Conduct, 1995-2011 (1995 Code)

Comment on: The new Law Society of Alberta Code of Conduct.

In the fall of 2011 the Law Society of Alberta implemented a new Code of Professional Conduct. The new Code is based on the Model Code of the Canadian Federation of Law Societies. Its implementation resulted in the repeal of the prior Law Society of Alberta Code of Conduct (“1995 Code”), the implementation of which in 1995 may be the most innovative step ever taken by a Canadian law society. The 1995 Code rejected the Canadian Bar Association Model Code, which all Canadian law societies had to that point followed, more or less, with its narrow scope and tendency towards the aspirational. Instead the 1995 Code set out clear and comprehensive guidelines establishing the essential obligations of lawyers working across practice contexts, and covering the spectrum of the tasks that lawyers do.