University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

The AUC Rejects an Application for an Industrial System Designation

By

On September 30, 2020

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The AUC Rejects an Application for an Industrial System Designation

Decision Commented On: AUC Decision 25117-D01-2020, TA Kaybob 3 Generation Facility Inc. Generation Facilities Applications; SemCAMS Midstream ULC Industrial System Designation Application, Kaybob 3 Generation Facilities Project, September 25, 2020;

Discussion Paper Commented On: AUC, Self-supply and export – Alberta Utilities Commission discussion paper, June 5, 2020 (published July 29, 2020, AUC Bulletin 2020-28)

Under the terms of the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, RSA 2000, c H-16 (HEEA) and the Electric Utilities Act, SA 2003, c E-5.1 (EUA), the holder of an Industrial System Designation (ISD or IS designation) is entitled to meet its own electricity needs and export any surplus electricity to the grid. In other words, the holder of an ISD is exempt from the ‘must offer, must exchange’ rules of the EUA for any generation that it self-consumes (EUA, s117, and conditions included in ISD approvals). A principal advantage of the ISD for the holder is that the holder does not incur distribution and transmission tariffs for electricity that it consumes on site. As previously canvassed on ABlawg (see here), other exemptions from the power pool rules do exist, but these are smaller scale exemptions and recent decisions of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or Commission) (see AUC Decision 23418-D01-2019, EPCOR Water Services Inc., E.L. Smith Solar Power Plant, February 20, 2019 (EL Smith decision) and related decisions) have reduced the availability of one of these exemptions, thereby increasing interest in the ISD (see for example AUC Decision 24979-D01-2020, International Paper Canada Pulp Holdings ULC, Industrial System Designation and Permanent Connection Order for the Grande Prairie Pulp Mill Complex, January 10, 2020; and for a more general discussion see AUC, Self-supply and export – discussion paper).

Read More

Tenant’s Insurance, Ministerial Order No SA:005/2020 and Evictions of Residential Tenants

By

On September 25, 2020

In COVID-19, Landlord/Tenant

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Tenant’s Insurance, Ministerial Order No SA:005/2020 and Evictions of Residential Tenants

Case Commented On: 20005321 (Re), 2020 ABRTDRS 20 (CanLII)

This decision by a Tenancy Dispute Officer (TDO), J. Lambert, of Alberta’s Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) is notable for three reasons. The first – and probably the most helpful to the widest range of landlords and tenants – is the discussion about whether or not a tenant’s failure to produce evidence of tenant’s insurance as required by their residential tenancy agreement is a “substantial breach” that entitles the landlord to evict the tenant. It seems that many residential tenancy agreements require tenants to obtain insurance for their own property – contents insurance – and many tenants do not bother to do so. The second reason is its consideration of Ministerial Order No SA:005/2020, which was intended to offer some help to tenants who could not pay their rent due to COVID-19. That Ministerial Order lapsed on August 14, 2020, so whatever impact it had should be apparent by now. But because of structural problems such as the small percentage of RTDRS decisions made public and the closure of courts to eviction cases at the beginning of the pandemic, we will probably never know whether or what kind of difference that Ministerial Order made. We do have a hint of its impact in the decision in 20005321 (Re), but it is only a hint. The third reason this decision is notable is that it is one of only 24 RTDRS decisions made public so far in 2020. The publication of some RTDRS decisions was a recent and deliberate commitment to “improved access to justice by publishing written RTDRS decisions through the CanLII database”, according to the Service Alberta Annual Report 2019/2020 (at 19). This decision contributes toward that goal, but more is needed.

Read More

The 2020/2021 Orphan Fund Levy and the Missing Consultation on Environmental Liability Management Reform

By

On September 22, 2020

In Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The 2020/2021 Orphan Fund Levy and the Missing Consultation on Environmental Liability Management Reform

Document Commented On: 2020/2021 Orphan Fund Levy Bulletin, Alberta Energy Regulator, September 10 2020

The Orphan Fund Levy is a levy imposed by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) on all holders of licensees or approvals issued by the AER. The levy is authorized by sections 72 to 75 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c O-6. The levy funds the work of the Orphan Well Association cleaning up oil and gas assets that have no solvent owners and no financial security set aside for their clean-up . The AER released a bulletin setting the 2020/2021 Orphan Fund Levy on September 10, 2020. The prescribed levy is $65 million for 2020/2021, up from $60 million in 2019/2020, $45 million in 2018/2019, and $30 million in 2017/2018 (when it was still collected in two parts).

The good news is that the Orphan Fund Levy is going up, which should help cover the substantial costs of cleaning up Alberta’s growing orphaned well inventory. The bad news is that in $3.4 million of the levy was not received in 2019 due to the insolvency of some operators (Orphan Well Association Annual Report, 2019). The ugly news is that, despite Alberta’s commitment to implement new regulations to significantly reduce the prospect of a growing inventory of orphan wells (see the announcement of April 17, 2020), and the provincial government’s press release of July 30, 2020 about of the new framework to manage oil and gas liabilities, there have yet to be any public details or public consultation on the design of the new liability management system. Alberta is drifting along with the old system despite acknowledging its massive problems.

Read More

Mediation: A Warning Not to Bully a Client into Settlement

By

On September 21, 2020

In Dispute Resolution, Family

By: Deanne Sowter

 PDF Version: Mediation: A Warning Not to Bully a Client into Settlement

Case Commented On: Raichura v Jones, 2020 ABQB 139

If a lawyer fails to prepare his client for mediation, and bullies her into a settlement, a court may find the lawyer negligent and award damages to the client amounting to the difference between what she settled for and what she likely would have obtained in court (or arbitration). That is what happened in Raichura v Jones, 2020 ABQB 139, a recent decision from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. In this case, the lawyer was ordered to pay damages of $131,939. In other words, this case is a lawyer’s nightmare. The facts may be uncommon, but the decision includes important warnings. The case has naturally provoked interest from the family law bar and has already been blogged about by Lorne Wolfson here, and by Aaron Franks and Michael Zalev in the June 1, 2020 edition of This Week in Family Law (paywall). As both blogs pointed out, the decision is being appealed. My primary interest with Raichura v Jones is the resounding message that lawyers should not bully their clients into a settlement.

Read More

Revisiting the Doctrine of Spoliation in the Age of Electronic Documents

By

On September 15, 2020

In Civil Procedure

By: Gideon Christian

PDF Version: Revisiting the Doctrine of Spoliation in the Age of Electronic Documents

The COVID-19 pandemic has driven us deeper into the virtual world. In our “new” work environments, conversations which were previously had one-on-one in office settings are now carried on by phone calls and emails. Meetings previously held in person are now substantially held virtually in Zoom, Microsoft Teams, WebEx, etc., and they are often recorded in electronic format. One of the impacts of this change is the fact that more than ever before, evidence of our work or business interactions, discussions and transactions will exist in this electronic format. We are generating more electronic documents than ever, and some of these documents may become the subject of discovery in future litigation arising from present transactions. The inability to produce these documents when they become relevant in future litigation may give rise to spoliation. Although the doctrine of spoliation was developed in the age of paper documents, the courts have increasingly applied it in the context of electronic documents. It is important to revisit this common law doctrine to identify the proper approach in its application to electronic documents, and its limits in addressing issues relating to preservation of electronic documents in litigation.

Read More

Page 93 of 438

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén