Unlike my colleagues I was not prepared to plump for just one case or event and so here are my thoughts on ten notable legal and regulatory events for the oil and gas sector in Alberta over the first decade of the millennium. They are in no particular order; I tried to group some together thematically but some are just here in the order in which they came to mind.
Case considered: Rachar v. Litvak, 2009 ABQB 441
PDF version: The Animal Keepers Act: Perennial Problems of Priority
This is the first case to consider the Animal Keepers Act, S.A. 2005, c. A-40.5, a piece of legislation which came into force in November of 2005. It replaced a 101-year-old statute, the Livery Stable Keepers Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.L-14, which was originally enacted in 1884 as an ordinance of the North-West Territories and applied to the area that would become Alberta. According to the Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Animal Keepers Act “provides a person who boards or cares for an animal a means of collecting outstanding bills owed by the owner of such animals with priority over all other liens, bills of sales, etc. without the use of costly, complicated legal processes.” The new Act seems to live up to this description. While extensively used by the cattle industry and other keepers of livestock, neither this Act nor its predecessor have been the subject of much judicial consideration. Those rare disputes that have been taken to court tend to involve issues of priority among creditors, as does this case.
PDF version: The Nothing that is: The leading environmental law case of the past decade
The most important judicial decision in environmental law from Alberta courts (or the Supreme Court of Canada for that matter) during the last decade is precisely the absence of any such decision. This is not to say that significant issues in environmental law have not been ruled upon by the courts during this time, but rather that environmental law has stagnated and has lost its vigour and imagination. The 1990s were marked with strong statements by the Supreme Court of Canada on environmental protection: “one of the major challenges of our time” (Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3 at para. 1); “a fundamental value in Canadian society” (Ontario v. Canadian Pacific, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031 at para. 55); “a public purpose of superordinate importance” (R. v. Hydro Quebec, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 213 at para. 85). Looking back now, these statements seem like nothing more than rhetoric.
By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton
PDF Version: A Vote for R v Kapp as the Leading Equality Case of the Past Decade
Case Commented On: R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41
R v Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 is my nominee for the most significant case of the Aughts decade in the equality rights area. Kapp was destined to be a landmark case, if only because it involved the first direct challenge on the enumerated ground of race under the Charter‘s equality guarantee that was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, because the Court used Kapp as a vehicle to substantially and substantively revise its approach to section 15 claims, the decision is even more significant.
Case considered: Lyatsky Geoscience Research and Consulting Ltd v. Geocan Energy Inc, 2009 ABPC 392
PDF version: Provincial Court royalty calculation decision
Very few oil and gas contract matters come before the Provincial Court, principally because of the cap of $25,000 on monetary awards (Provincial Court Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-31. s.9.6 and Provincial Court Civil Division Regulation, Alta. Reg. 329/1989, s.1.1). In this case the plaintiff claimed a gross overriding royalty (GORR) and sought to recover from the defendant the difference between a 3% royalty paid on 7.5% of production from a property and 3% royalty paid on 100% of production. According to the plaintiff, the difference amounted to some $17,000 between 2006 and November 2008. Presumably, the plaintiff would also use any judgement from the Provincial Court in their favour to argue (absent the right to obtain a declaration from that Court) that future payments should also be based upon the terms of the judgement. The case was complicated by the fact that there was no direct privity between the parties. Judge J.T. McCarthy ruled in favour of the plaintiffs.