The Alberta Energy Regulator Enforces New Licensee Capability Assessment and Restricts License Eligibility of AlphaBow

By: Drew Yewchuk

AER Administrative Sanction Commented On: 202207-13, AlphaBow Energy Ltd.

PDF Version: The Alberta Energy Regulator Enforces New Licensee Capability Assessment and Restricts License Eligibility of AlphaBow

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) issued an administrative sanction to AlphaBow Energy Ltd. on July 28, 2022. Two aspects of the sanction make this an interesting case rather than a routine enforcement action: first, the history of AlphaBow, and second, that the administrative sanction is the AER implementing their new approach to liability management, so the terms and the ultimate outcome of this administrative sanction are a decent indication of things to come. Continue reading →

Novel Form of Agreement to Reserve Surface Rights Payments

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: Schnell v Stene (Heidinger Estate), 2022 SKQB 146 (CanLII)

PDF version: Novel Form of Agreement to Reserve Surface Rights Payments

It is not uncommon for a vendor of agricultural lands in western Canada to seek to ensure that the vendor will continue to receive the benefit of surface rights payments payable under the terms of surface rights leases or right of entry orders. Perhaps the most common technique to achieve this result is by way of an agreement to assign rents. This will be effective so long as one is confident that such an agreement creates an interest in land that can be protected by way of caveat. In some jurisdictions legislation deems such an agreement to give rise to an interest in land, (see, for example, Law of Property Act, RSA 2000, c L-7 at s 63(1)(b)) whereas in other jurisdictions the point may be more debatable: (e.g. Alberta  prior to the 1985 amendment to the Law of Property Act: see Webster v Brown, 2004 ABQB 321 (CanLII) and Canadian Crude Separators Inc. v Mychaluk, 1997 CanLII 14841 (AB QB), [1998] 1 WWR 545. Continue reading →

For the Record: Who Makes COVID-19 Public Health Orders in Alberta?

By: Shaun Fluker and Lorian Hardcastle

Decisions commented on: CM v Alberta, 2022 ABQB 462 (CanLII); CM v Alberta, 2022 ABQB 357 (CanLII)

PDF Version: For the Record: Who Makes COVID-19 Public Health Orders in Alberta?

In an effort to be a frontrunner in the race to remove COVID-19 public health measures during the early months of 2022, the Alberta government made several notable moves, including decisions on masking. On February 8, 2022, the Premier announced that children would no longer be required to wear masks in school as of February 14 and that children under 12 would not be required to mask anywhere. On the same day, the Minister of Education took the opportunity to issue her own written direction that “[A]s of February 14, 2022 school boards will not be empowered by provincial health order or recommendations from the CMOH to require ECS – grade 12 students to be masked to attend school in person or to ride a school bus.” This direction by the Minister was a notable departure from her earlier position that schools were explicitly permitted to implement public health measures to respond to their own local context. Continue reading →

Alberta’s Orphan and Unreclaimed Oil and Gas Assets in July 2022

By: Drew Yewchuk

Annual Report Commented On: Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2021/2022; AER Bulletin 2022-23 Mandatory Closure Spend Target Set for 2023

PDF Version: Alberta’s Orphan and Unreclaimed Oil and Gas Assets in July 2022

The Orphan Well Association (OWA) released their annual report for 2021/2022 this month, and the AER posted Bulletin 2022-23 updating the mandatory closure spend targets. This post discusses these two documents and describes the current state of Alberta’s orphan and inactive oil and gas assets. For greater background on the OWA and the history of the problem, see here. Continue reading →

Canada Study Permit Litigation – Critical Analysis of Inconsistent Jurisprudence on Financial Requirement

By: Gideon Christian

Case Commented On: Ocran v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 175 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Canada Study Permit Litigation – Critical Analysis of Inconsistent Jurisprudence on Financial Requirement

Early this year, Justice Little of the Federal Court released the much-awaited decision in Ocran v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 175 (CanLII). I am not aware of any study permit judicial review litigation that attracted the attention of Canadian immigration lawyers as much as Ocran. The notoriety of this judicial review litigation was based on the fact that it was a test case that the Department of Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) sought to use to obtain judicial approval for its use of the controversial Chinook software in processing of immigration applications. That approval never came. But the fixation on Chinook software caused many immigration lawyers to miss a very important and controversial judicial pronouncement in Ocran relating to the financial requirement for Canadian study permit applications. Continue reading →