ABLawg

Sometimes it becomes apparent when reading a decision that the court would have preferred to reach a different result. Usually this is because the law seems to compel the result the court reaches, but fairness demands another. The decisions of the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal in Bharwani v. Chengkalath are examples of the constraints the law occasionally puts on a court’s ability to do what seems right. The defendant in this case won, but it did not seem fair that she did.

A Lost Opportunity for Clarifying Public Participation Issues in Oil and Gas Decision Making

By Nickie Nikolaou

On May 10, 2008

In Natural Resources

Cases Considered: Graff v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 119

PDF Version: A Lost Opportunity for Clarifying Public Participation Issues in Oil and Gas Decision Making

Those of us following the year-long journey of the Graff family (the “Graffs”) through the Court of Appeal were stunned when the final decision was handed down on March 26, 2008. While the grounds upon which leave to appeal had been granted held out promises of clarification on certain key public participation issues in oil and gas development, none of these grounds were ultimately dealt with by the Court. Instead, both appeals (heard together) were dismissed on the basic procedural point that parties requesting standing before the Energy and Utilities Board (the “EUB”, now the ERCB) must provide at least some relevant evidence to support their claim of being “directly and adversely” affected.

The Independent Operation Of The Shut-in Clause Of An Oil And Gas Lease

By Nigel Bankes

On May 10, 2008

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Kensington Energy Ltd v. B & G Energy Ltd 2008 ABCA 151

PDF Version: The Independent Operation Of The Shut-in Clause Of An Oil And Gas Lease

In this important decision (hereafter “Kensington”) the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Hunt and Slatter JJA; Romaine JA dissenting) concluded that the third proviso to the habendum of an oil and gas lease does not establish a set of conditions precedent that the lessee must fulfill before it can rely upon the shut-in wells clause and shut-in well payment to deem production, thereby continuing the lease – at least, and this is an important caveat – where the language of the shut-in wells clause does not track that of the third proviso. In reaching this conclusion the Court effectively distinguished its earlier decision in Freyberg v. Fletcher Challenge Oil and Gas Inc, 2005 ABCA 46 (“Lady Freyberg”).

The relationship between the well licence jurisdiction of the Energy Resources Conservation Board and the jurisdiction of the Surface Rights Board

By Nigel Bankes

On May 9, 2008

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: EnCana Corporation v. Campbell, [2008] ABQB 234

PDF Version: The relationship between the well licence jurisdiction of the Energy Resources Conservation Board and the jurisdiction of the Surface Rights Board

Justice Crighton’s decision in EnCana v. Campbell suggests that land owners may be able to use the Surface Rights Board (SRB) to require an oil and gas operator to follow more stringent conditions in relation to surface access and related matters such as weed control and water quality protection and testing than may be prescribed in the terms of a well licence or the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB)’s Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations. Given the potential surface impacts of coal bed methane (CBM) development in the province and the uncertainties associated with the effect of CBM operations on ground water quality this is an important development. But while it offers additional protection for surface owners it also has the potential for a patchwork of environmental requirements etc. which may vary from property to property. This may well be a case where the re-born ERCB needs to be more proactive and precautionary so as to reflect the concerns of and uncertainties faced by landowners especially with respect to such an important matter as water quality.

An Equity Rationale for the Enforcement of the Corporate Veil?: The Alberta Court of Appeal Considers a Joint Venture Agreement in the Shadow of Corporate Reorganization

By Michael Ilg

On April 28, 2008

In Corporate / Commercial

Cases Considered: Apex Corporation v Ceco Developments Ltd., 2008 ABCA 125

PDF Version: An Equity Rationale for the Enforcement of the Corporate Veil?: The Alberta Court of Appeal Considers a Joint Venture Agreement in the Shadow of Corporate Reorganization

Common law courts have demonstrated a willingness to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ in circumstances when upholding the assumption of separate corporate legal identity would, for example: endorse an instrument that appears simply a sham; would permit for behaviour “akin to fraud”(Gilford Motor Company Ltd. v. Horne, [1933] Ch. 935 (C.A.)); or lead to a result “too flagrantly opposed to justice”(Kosmopolous v. Constitution Insurance Co. of Canada [1987] 1 S.C.R. 2). This latter language of justice, authored by Madame Justice Bertha Wilson, in particular signals a potential equitable limit to the invocation of separate corporate legal identity. And so while there are rare, if established, instances for piercing the corporate veil based upon justice concerns, the instances of an equitable enforcement of corporate personality are rarer still, and indeed may be difficult to conceive of. Involved would be a court enforcement of separate legal entity despite the claims of a corporation’s ownership. Yet, just such a curious result occurred in the Alberta Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Apex Corporation v. Ceco Developments Ltd. (per Justice Jean Côté, Justices Ellen Picard and Peter Martin concurring).

The Guarantees Acknowledgement Act and Equity

A Lost Opportunity for Clarifying Public Participation Issues in Oil and Gas Decision Making

The Independent Operation Of The Shut-in Clause Of An Oil And Gas Lease

The relationship between the well licence jurisdiction of the Energy Resources Conservation Board and the jurisdiction of the Surface Rights Board

An Equity Rationale for the Enforcement of the Corporate Veil?: The Alberta Court of Appeal Considers a Joint Venture Agreement in the Shadow of Corporate Reorganization