ABLawg

Updates to the Oil and Gas Liability Management Framework: The New Closure Nomination and The Renamed Closure Quotas

On March 22, 2023

Regulatory Documents Commented on: Directive 088: Licensee Life-Cycle Management (February 2023) and Manual 23: Licensee Life-Cycle Management (February 2023)

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Updates to the Oil and Gas Liability Management Framework: The New Closure Nomination and The Renamed Closure Quotas

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) continues to work towards implementing the Government of Alberta’s new Liability Management Framework. This post goes into the details of this implementation, on the assumption the reader is familiar with the ongoing reforms. For some background, see ABlawg’s post from February 2021 here, and my 8 November 2022 post. This post covers the February 2023 updates from the AER: a new Directive 088: Licensee Life-Cycle Management, a new Manual 23: Licensee Life-Cycle Management, responses to an engagement survey on Directive 088, and the Fall 2022 Engagement Session Q&A on Closure Nomination. The AER also released a new explanatory video.

The Alberta Energy Regulator and the Disclosure Without Delay Rule in FOIP

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 6, 2023

In Energy, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The Alberta Energy Regulator and the Disclosure Without Delay Rule in FOIP

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has been aware that industrial effluent has been seeping from a tailings pit at Imperial’s Kearl oilsands mine since May 2022. (They should not be called tailings ‘ponds’ – they may be pits or lakes, but ‘pond’ implies they are small, which they absolutely are not). The AER chose to make this information public on February 4, 2023, when an estimated 5,300 cubic meters of “[s]torage pond overflowed off lease” and the AER began investigating Imperial for “[f]ailure to comply with conditions of an approval and release of industrial watewater [sic] from an unapproved location” (AER compliance dashboard, incident number 20230311 and investigation number 2023-009).

Biodiversity Offsets and the Species at Risk Act (Canada)

By Shaun Fluker

On February 27, 2023

In Environmental, Protection of Species

By: Shaun Fluker

Matter Commented On: Environment and Climate Change Canada Draft Offsetting Policy for Biodiversity

PDF Version: Biodiversity Offsets and the Species at Risk Act (Canada)

The federal government has a laudable objective of ‘no net loss’ for development projects that will harm biodiversity in Canada. For threatened species who will lose habitat because of development, the concept of ‘no net loss’ means either avoidance, mitigation, or offsets. Avoidance of habitat loss (e.g. no project) is rarely seriously considered – and is really nonsensical when a project footprint overlaps with habitat – and efforts aimed at mitigation of adverse effects on threatened species are widely known to be pie-in-the-sky measures with little or no effectiveness (see here). Thus, a ‘no net loss’ outcome in the context of choosing between development and protecting habitat necessarily means the use of biodiversity offsets. David Poulton has written extensively for ABlawg on the topic of biodiversity offsets and resource development (see e.g. here), and a constant theme in this topic is the legal and policy vacuum on biodiversity offsets. In 2016, the Public Interest Law Clinic submitted comments on a proposed offsets policy under section 73 of the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (Drew Yewchuk and I posted that submission to ABlawg here). Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has recently issued a draft Offsetting Policy for Biodiversity which will replace its 2012 policy, and this post publishes my submission letter giving comments to ECCC on the Offsets Policy as it relates to threatened species, in response to the public engagement which closed on February 17, 2023.

Another Trap for Unwary Alberta Residential Tenants: Short, Rigid Appeal Periods

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On February 24, 2023

In Property, Residential Tenancies Dispute Resolution Service

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case Commented On: Afolabi v Wexcel Realty Management Ltd, 2023 ABKB 68 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Another Trap for Unwary Alberta Residential Tenants: Short, Rigid Appeal Periods

I have written before about the difficulties tenants face when trying to exercise their right to appeal orders granted by the Tenancy Dispute Officers (TDOs) of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS); see here and here. Those posts only briefly mention the timeline for filing an appeal, which is 30 days from the filing of the RTDRS Order in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta according to section 23(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Regulation, Alta Reg 98/2006 (Regulation). I have also written before about some other fundamental deficiencies in that Regulation (here and here), as has my colleague, Shaun Fluker (here). This decision by Justice Michael A. Marion provides an opportunity to discuss the trap for unwary tenants caused by the appeal timeline provisions in the Regulation and by related provisions in the RTDRS Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).

Worrying About Reclamation and Abandonment Obligations in the Context of Property Assignment Consents

By Nigel Bankes

On February 22, 2023

In Energy, Natural Resources, Provincial Court, Uncategorized

By: Nigel Bankes and Drew Yewchuk

Case commented on: Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Harvest Operations Corp, 2023 ABKB 62 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Worrying About Reclamation and Abandonment Obligations in the Context of Property Assignment Consents

This decision is principally about when a court can or should grant partial summary judgment. For that reason alone, we anticipate that it will be appealed. But the underlying concern that led to this litigation was (and still is) the decision of Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) to contest assignments pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) between Harvest Operations as the vendor and Spoke Resources as the purchaser. CNRL and Harvest were parties to some 170 agreements affected by the PSA, including 133 land agreements, 30 facility agreements, and 7 service agreements.