Page 43

Abandonment and Reclamation Obligations, Builders Liens, and Municipal Taxes in Oil and Gas Bankruptcy Proceedings

Cases Commented On: Manitok Energy Inc (Re), 2022 ABCA 117 (CanLII)

Re Manitok Energy Inc, 2022 ABCA 117 (CanLII) (Manitok) was released March 30, 2022. It relates to the bankruptcy of an Alberta oil and gas corporation and interprets the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (often referred to as Redwater, after the bankrupt company involved). The specific question before the Court of Appeal in Manitok was:

Whether end of life obligations associated with the abandonment and reclamation of unsold oil and gas properties must be satisfied by the Receiver from Manitok’s estate in preference to satisfying what may otherwise be first-ranking builders’ lien claims based on services provided by the lien claimants before the receivership date. (Manitok at para 1)

#Don’tDisbelieveHer: Towards Recognition of Myths and Stereotypes about Intimate Partner Violence at the Supreme Court of Canada

By Jennifer Koshan

On April 13, 2022

In Criminal, Family

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: #Don’tDisbelieveHer: Towards Recognition of Myths and Stereotypes about Intimate Partner Violence at the Supreme Court of Canada

Case Commented On: Barendregt v Grebliunas, 2021 BCCA 11 (CanLII); appeal allowed, 2021 CanLII 124350 (SCC; written reasons to follow)

Over the last 20 years, there has been significant progress in the judicial recognition of rape myths and stereotypes (see e.g., R v Seaboyer; R v Gayme, 1991 CanLII 76 (SCC), [1991] 2 SCR 577 and more recently, R v Barton, 2019 SCC 33 (CanLII)). Federally appointed judges must now undertake to participate in education on sexual violence and its social context, but no similar duty exists for judicial education about intimate partner violence (IPV) (see a discussion here). Unfortunately, myths and stereotypes about IPV are not uncommon in Canadian case law. To name a few, survivors of IPV, who are disproportionately women, face allegations that they have lied about or exaggerated IPV out of vengeance, jealousy, or to gain an advantage in family law proceedings; that IPV ends at separation or is irrelevant unless it is physical; and that exposure to IPV has no impact on children (see e.g., here at 46-47). Allegations like this have been called out in feminist socio-legal literature for decades as being grounded in myths and stereotypes, but there are only a handful of cases in which the Supreme Court of Canada has explicitly recognized myths and stereotypes about IPV.

Alberta Extends the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation for Another 5 Years

By Shaun Fluker

On April 11, 2022

In Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Alberta Extends the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation for Another 5 Years

Order Commented On: Order in Council 084/2022 (April 6, 2022)

On April 6, the Lieutenant Governor in Council issued Order in Council 084/2022 which amends section 35 of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Alta Reg 98/2006 to extend the Regulation for another 5 years (moving the expiry date from April 30, 2022, to April 30, 2027). There is nothing particularly unusual about this amendment, and indeed it would be very problematic if the Regulation were simply left to expire on April 30 given the role and function of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) in adjudicating landlord-tenant disputes under the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 and the Mobile Home Sites Tenancies Act, RSA 2000, c M-20. My reason for noting this here is because of what did not occur along with the amendment. Specifically, the absence of any apparent review of the Regulation and its governance measures concerning the RTDRS.

If A Land Claims Agreement Says That You Must Resolve The Dispute Through Arbitration, Then That’s What You Must Do

By Nigel Bankes

On March 31, 2022

In Aboriginal

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: If A Land Claims Agreement Says That You Must Resolve The Dispute Through Arbitration, Then That’s What You Must Do

Case Commented On: Newfoundland and Labrador v Nunatsiavut Government, 2022 NLCA 19 (CanLII)

If a land claims agreement says that you must resolve the dispute through arbitration, then that’s what you must do. That’s the blunt (and perhaps obvious) conclusion of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal in this decision involving the terms of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (Agreement).

There could be little doubt that the Agreement did in fact stipulate that a dispute of this nature (a dispute relating to the determination and sharing of revenues from the Voisey’s Bay project) must be referred to arbitration (see the combined effect of ss 7.6.9 and 21.9.1of the Agreement, as discussed at paras 34 -52). But in this case, the Nunatsiavut government had submitted the dispute to the provincial superior court, and the provincial government had failed to take any objection to that course of action; until it lost at trial (Nunatsiavut Government v Newfoundland and Labrador, 2020 NLSC 129 (CanLII))and the matter went on appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Is The Canadian Energy Centre A Department, Branch or Office of the Government of Alberta?

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 30, 2022

In Energy

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Is The Canadian Energy Centre A Department, Branch or Office of the Government of Alberta?

Decision Commented On: Re Canadian Energy Centre Ltd, Order F2022-16 (AB OIPC)

The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) released a Re Canadian Energy Centre Ltd, Order F2022-16 finding that the Canadian Energy Centre (CEC), which is also known as the ‘War Room’, is not subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP). This is the outcome the Alberta government intended when creating the CEC, and Alberta Energy participated in the hearing to argue the CEC was not subject to FOIP. Despite that, my view is that the OIPC adjudicator made errors in interpreting FOIP and their conclusion is wrong. The CEC is a ‘public body’ subject to FOIP.