Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Confirms that a Registrar’s Caveat Is Not a Magic Wand

By: Nigel Bankes and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Confirms that a Registrar’s Caveat Is Not a Magic Wand

Decision Commented On: Primrose Drilling Ventures v Registrar of Titles, 2021 SKCA 15

This case involves the rights acquired by a party (Primrose Drilling) who took a title that was encumbered by a registrar’s caveat. The caveat was filed to warn purchasers of a potential registrar’s error made back in the chain of title, but it was filed after a purchaser for value had got on the register relying on the flawed title.

The case came before the courts on the basis of a reference from the registrar relying on section 108 of The Land Titles Act, 2000, SS 2000, c L-5.1. The trial judge (Registrar of Titles and Great West Life Assurance Company and Primrose Drilling Ventures Ltd, 2018 SKQB 290 (CanLII)) concluded that Primrose’s title was subject to whatever interest the Registrar was seeking to protect (in this case the interests of GWL, the successor in interest to a party wrongly deprived of the mineral title to the lands in question). We commented on the trial judgment at some length in “Saskatchewan Land Titles Decision Calls Out for Appellate Review.” We took the position that the registrar had no authority to file a caveat once a purchaser for value had got on title on the faith of the register and that Primrose (the last purchaser for value in the chain of purchasers for value) was entitled to a title free of the blemish represented by the registrar’s claim. We refer the reader to that post for a detailed analysis and discussion of relevant authorities from both Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Continue reading →

Reforming Personal Property Security Law

By: Tamara Buckwold and Roderick Wood

PDF Version: Reforming Personal Property Security Law

Report Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Personal Property Security Law, Report for Discussion 35 (December 2020)

Every Canadian province and territory, except for Quebec, has enacted a Personal Property Security Act. Although there are minor variations across jurisdictions, these statutes are substantially uniform. Alberta’s Personal Property Security Act, RSA 2000, c P-7 (PPSA) originally came into force in October 1990. Its enactment transformed secured transactions law in Alberta by sweeping away many of the restrictions and limitations that impeded the use of secured credit. It replaced the piecemeal approach that formerly governed with a comprehensive and rational system that fostered certainty, transparency and flexibility. The success of the legislation is confirmed by the transplantation of the Canadian model into other jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Australia.

Although the PPSA produced a significant improvement in the law, experience with the legislation over the course of the last three decades has revealed several instances where improvements or clarifications are desirable. In some cases, the need for reform is driven by technological advances. When the PPSA was first enacted, electronic banking and electronic commerce were in their infancy. In other cases, judicial decisions have revealed ambiguities in the legislation that have produced uncertainty. Further, the statute simply did not anticipate the kinds of controversies that would be litigated in the future, and therefore did not provide rules for the resolution of these types of disputes.

Continue reading →

The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 1: The Motion to Strike and the Interveners

By: Drew Yewchuk 

PDF Version: The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 1: The Motion to Strike and the Interveners

Cases Commented on: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2020 ABQB 6 (CanLII) and PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2020 ABCA 417 (CanLII)

The Orphan Well Association (OWA) was back in court on December 10, 2020 for the appeal of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2020 ABQB 6 (CanLII). The OWA is concerned about the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (CanLII) (Redwater), and specifically whether the finding that abandonment and reclamation obligations (ARO) are not “provable claims” in bankruptcy implies that ARO are not “liabilities” for the purposes of determining the financial situation of a corporation and hence whether a corporation is solvent.

The Redwater decision concluded that a trustee for a bankrupt oil and gas company had to use the bankrupt estate’s assets to pay for the ARO of non-producing wells, and could not “disclaim” them. Redwater started as a bankruptcy case under the name Redwater Energy Corporation (Re), 2016 ABQB 278 (CanLII). (I recommend Nigel Bankes’ earlier posts on the Queen’s Bench decision and the Court of Appeal decision in Redwater, and Jassmine Girgis’s post on the Supreme Court decision for a complete background.)

Continue reading →

“Textbook Climate Denialism”: A Submission to the Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

By: Martin Olszynski

 PDF Version: “Textbook Climate Denialism”: A Submission to the Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns 

Matter Commented On: Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns

After two deadline extensions and an additional $1 million dollars, Premier Jason Kenney’s Public Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns is entering its final stretch (for previous ABlawg posts, see here, here, here, and here). Back in October of 2020, I decided to seek, and was granted, standing to participate in the Inquiry. As has been my practice in such matters, what follows is my submission, dated December 15, 2020, modified only for formatting purposes. Links to reports provided to me by the Commissioner are to the Inquiry’s website, which has recently been updated.

Continue reading →

The Court of Appeal Rebukes the Environmental Appeal Board and the Director for an Erroneously Narrow Interpretation, and Unreasonable Application, of the phrase “Directly Affected” in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

By: Kirk Lambrecht Q.C.

PDF Version: The Court of Appeal Rebukes the Environmental Appeal Board and the Director for an Erroneously Narrow Interpretation, and Unreasonable Application, of the phrase “Directly Affected” in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

Decision Commented On: Normtek Radiation Services Ltd v Alberta Environmental Appeal Board, 2020 ABCA 456 (CanLII), reversing Normtek Radiation Services Ltd v Alberta (Environmental Appeals Board), 2018 ABQB 911 (CanLII), which upheld Normtek Radiation Services Ltd. v Director, Red Deer-North Saskatchewan Region, Alberta Environment and Parks, re: Secure Energy Services Inc. (2 March 2018), Appeal No. 16-024-D (AEAB)

This brief case comment offers a proposition on the cause of a yawning gap between (i) purposes defined in section 2 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA); and (ii) practices of the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) and the Directors under EPEA.

The proposition advanced here is that the phrase “directly affected” in EPEA has been, for decades, interpreted and applied by the EAB and Directors under EPEA in such a way as to avoid Ministerial oversight of Directors’ decisions regarding the environment. In Normtek, the Court of Appeal attempted to correct these practices. In the result, the Court remitted the matter of Normtek’s standing to appeal to the EAB back to the EAB for reconsideration in accordance with the reasons of the Court. 

Continue reading →