ABLawg

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.

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

By Drew Yewchuk

On January 18, 2021

In Civil Procedure, Energy, Oil & Gas

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.)

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

By Martin Olszynski

On January 14, 2021

In Energy

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.

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.

On January 11, 2021

In Environmental

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.

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Confirms High Court Decision on the Relationship Between a Farmout Agreement and an Operating Agreement

By Nigel Bankes

On January 4, 2021

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Confirms High Court Decision on the Relationship Between a Farmout Agreement and an Operating Agreement

Decision Commented On: Apache North Sea Limited v Euroil Exploration Limited and Edison SPA, [2020] EWCA Civ 1397

In this decision, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales confirmed Judge Pelling’s decision in the High Court with respect to the drilling costs Apache was entitled to recover from Euroil under the terms of a farmout agreement (FOA) and its related joint operating agreement (JOA). I commented on Judge Pelling’s decision here and I refer readers to that earlier post for a more detailed statement of the facts, as well as references to Canadian decisions dealing with the relationship between an FOA and the JOA.

In that earlier post I suggested that the FOA at issue here would likely be denominated as a “farmout and participation agreement” in a Canadian context insofar as the drilling obligation was not a sole risk obligation of the farmee (Euroil) but rather was a shared risk operation for which Euroil was to cover only a percentage of the costs. The farmor, Apache, was to carry out the drilling operation as operator and was also responsible for a percentage of the costs.

Reforming Personal Property Security Law

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

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

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

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Confirms High Court Decision on the Relationship Between a Farmout Agreement and an Operating Agreement