ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. et al. v. Alberta Utilities Commission, 2014 ABCA 397

• Judge: Fraser, C.J.A., Côté and Martin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: May 09, 2014
• Citations: 2014 ABCA 397;(2014), 588 A.R. 134

ATCO Gas & Pipelines v. Utilities Comm. (2014), 588 A.R. 134; 626 W.A.C. 134 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. DE.031

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. and ATCO Electric Ltd. (appellants) v. Alberta Utilities Commission (respondent)

(1301-0069-AC)

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. and ATCO Electric Ltd. (appellants) v. Alberta Utilities Commission and Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate of Alberta (respondents)

(1301-0070-AC; 2014 ABCA 397)

Indexed As: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. et al. v. Alberta Utilities Commission

Alberta Court of Appeal

Fraser, C.J.A., Côté and Martin, JJ.A.

December 2, 2014.

Summary:

These appeals related to decisions made by the Alberta Utilities Commission in two separate proceedings about legal and consulting costs claimed by the appellants (ATCO Utilities). The Commission determined that it had the authority to manage and assess the legal costs of all regulated utilities in Alberta in proceedings before it and to establish rules and guidelines for the recovery of such legal costs. The ATCO Utilities were granted leave to appeal on the following question: "Did the Commission err in law or jurisdiction by denying or limiting recovery of the Appellants' claimed regulatory costs and by treating the costs of or incidental to any hearing or other proceeding of the Commission differently than other costs?" (see [2013] A.R. Uned. 374).

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Martin, J.A., dissenting in part, dismissed the appeals.

Administrative Law - Topic 9069

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Energy and utility boards - These appeals related to decisions made by the Alberta Utilities Commission in two separate proceedings about legal and consulting costs claimed by the appellants (ATCO Utilities) - The Commission determined that it had the authority to manage and assess the legal costs of all regulated utilities in Alberta in proceedings before it and to establish rules and guidelines for the recovery of such legal costs - The ATCO Utilities were granted leave to appeal on the following question: "Did the Commission err in law or jurisdiction by denying or limiting recovery of the Appellants' claimed regulatory costs and by treating the costs of or incidental to any hearing or other proceeding of the Commission differently than other costs?" - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals - Fraser, C.J.A., held that the Commission's decision was reasonable - The textual wording of the relevant legislation conferred on the Commission the authority and discretion with respect to the awarding of costs - "The Alberta Legislature chose to confer on the Commission, as with its predecessors, a discretionary costs authority coupled with the right on the part of the Commission to create costs guidelines with respect to its proceedings. The Commission passed costs guidelines, namely Rule 022, which it then applied in deciding the amount of the legal costs to be awarded to the ATCO Utilities. Thus, in concluding that it possessed the statutory authority to make the costs orders that it did, the Commission acted reasonably." - See paragraphs 80 to 101.

Administrative Law - Topic 9069

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Energy and utility boards - These appeals related to decisions made by the Alberta Utilities Commission in two separate proceedings about legal and consulting costs claimed by the appellants (ATCO Utilities) - The Commission determined that it had the authority to manage and assess the legal costs of all regulated utilities in Alberta in proceedings before it and to establish rules and guidelines for the recovery of such legal costs - The ATCO Utilities were granted leave to appeal on the following question: "Did the Commission err in law or jurisdiction by denying or limiting recovery of the Appellants' claimed regulatory costs and by treating the costs of or incidental to any hearing or other proceeding of the Commission differently than other costs?" - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals - Fraser, C.J.A., held that the Commission's decision was reasonable - There was nothing in the relevant legislation that entitled Alberta Utilities to full recovery of their legal costs - See paragraphs 102 to 105.

Administrative Law - Topic 9069

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Energy and utility boards - These appeals related to decisions made by the Alberta Utilities Commission in two separate proceedings about legal and consulting costs claimed by the appellants (ATCO Utilities) - The Commission determined that it had the authority to manage and assess the legal costs of all regulated utilities in Alberta in proceedings before it and to establish rules and guidelines for the recovery of such legal costs - The ATCO Utilities were granted leave to appeal on the following question: "Did the Commission err in law or jurisdiction by denying or limiting recovery of the Appellants' claimed regulatory costs and by treating the costs of or incidental to any hearing or other proceeding of the Commission differently than other costs?" - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals - Fraser, C.J.A., held that the Commission's decision was reasonable - Policy reasons strongly favoured the Legislature's decision to grant the Commission a general discretion with respect to the awarding of legal costs - Without the ability to regulate legal costs as the Commission considered appropriate, the Commission would be unduly restricted in its ability to govern its proceedings - Without this control, there would be no effective incentive on any party in proceedings before the Commission to minimize their legal costs - See paragraph 106.

Administrative Law - Topic 9069

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Energy and utility boards - These appeals related to decisions made by the Alberta Utilities Commission in two separate proceedings about legal and consulting costs claimed by the appellants (ATCO Utilities) - The Commission determined that it had the authority to manage and assess the legal costs of all regulated utilities in Alberta in proceedings before it and to establish rules and guidelines for the recovery of such legal costs - ATCO Utilities were granted leave to appeal on the following question: "Did the Commission err in law or jurisdiction by denying or limiting recovery of the Appellants' claimed regulatory costs and by treating the costs of or incidental to any hearing or other proceeding of the Commission differently than other costs?" - ATCO Utilities asserted that the concept of "regulatory impact" gave them the opportunity to both earn a reasonable return on its prudent investment and to recover its prudently incurred expenses, i.e., legal costs - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals - Fraser, C.J.A., held that the Commission's decision was reasonable - Whatever the scope of the regulatory compact at common law, it could not trump statutory provisions that defined the terms of the regulatory compact in Alberta - The regulatory compact did not guarantee full recovery of all costs - It offered an "opportunity" both to earn a reasonable return on its prudent investment - its capital costs - and to recover its prudently incurred expenses - its operating costs - The regulatory compact was governed by the statutory framework under which it operated in Alberta - The Alberta government had the right to decide the shape and terms of that framework unless the legislation it adopted was unconstitutional or void for uncertainty - No such challenge to the legislation has been made in these cases - See paragraphs 107 to 112.

Administrative Law - Topic 9069

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Energy and utility boards - These appeals related to decisions made by the Alberta Utilities Commission in two separate proceedings about legal and consulting costs claimed by the appellants (ATCO Utilities) - The Commission determined that it had the authority to manage and assess the legal costs of all regulated utilities in Alberta in proceedings before it and to establish rules and guidelines for the recovery of such legal costs - The ATCO Utilities were granted leave to appeal on the following question: "Did the Commission err in law or jurisdiction by denying or limiting recovery of the Appellants' claimed regulatory costs and by treating the costs of or incidental to any hearing or other proceeding of the Commission differently than other costs?" - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals - Fraser, C.J.A., held that the Commission's decision was reasonable - The legal costs in dispute here did not fall within the scope of regulatory costs incurred in rate-setting hearings - See paragraphs 113 to 118.

Administrative Law - Topic 9069

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Energy and utility boards - These appeals related to decisions made by the Alberta Utilities Commission in two separate proceedings about legal and consulting costs claimed by the appellants (ATCO Utilities) - The Commission determined that it had the authority to manage and assess the legal costs of all regulated utilities in Alberta in proceedings before it and to establish rules and guidelines for the recovery of such legal costs - The ATCO Utilities were granted leave to appeal on the following question: "Did the Commission err in law or jurisdiction by denying or limiting recovery of the Appellants' claimed regulatory costs and by treating the costs of or incidental to any hearing or other proceeding of the Commission differently than other costs?" - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals - Fraser, C.J.A., held that the Commission's decision was reasonable - The Commission's decision on legal costs in an individual rate-setting case did not negatively impact on a utility's rate of return in an improper or unfair manner - See paragraph 119.

Administrative Law - Topic 9069

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Energy and utility boards - These appeals (0069 and 0070) related to decisions made by the Alberta Utilities Commission in two separate proceedings about legal and consulting costs claimed by the appellants (ATCO Utilities) - The Commission determined that it had the authority to manage and assess the legal costs of all regulated utilities in Alberta in proceedings before it and to establish rules and guidelines for the recovery of such legal costs - The ATCO Utilities were granted leave to appeal on the following question: "Did the Commission err in law or jurisdiction by denying or limiting recovery of the Appellants' claimed regulatory costs and by treating the costs of or incidental to any hearing or other proceeding of the Commission differently than other costs?" - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals - With respect to appeal 0069, Côté, J.A., held that the hearing was not the typical or traditional rate hearing - Concerns about the principles to be applied in reimbursing or not reimbursing the rate hearing expenses of a public utility subject to traditional rate setting, become moot or academic in the present appeal - See paragraphs 127 to 137.

Administrative Law - Topic 9069

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Energy and utility boards - These appeals (0069 and 0070) related to decisions made by the Alberta Utilities Commission in two separate proceedings about legal and consulting costs claimed by the appellants (ATCO Utilities) - The Commission determined that it had the authority to manage and assess the legal costs of all regulated utilities in Alberta in proceedings before it and to establish rules and guidelines for the recovery of such legal costs - The ATCO Utilities were granted leave to appeal on the following question: "Did the Commission err in law or jurisdiction by denying or limiting recovery of the Appellants' claimed regulatory costs and by treating the costs of or incidental to any hearing or other proceeding of the Commission differently than other costs?" - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals - With respect to appeal 0070, Côté, J.A., held that the Commission addressed itself to the right topics, and the numbers chosen by it were not manifest evidence of some lurking error of law - There was no ground to interfere, nor to send the matter back to the Commission to retax in the hope that some error might turn up - See paragraphs 138 to 161.

Administrative Law - Topic 9122

Boards and tribunals - Administrative appeals - Scope of appeal or standard of review - These appeals related to decisions made by the Alberta Utilities Commission in two separate proceedings about legal and consulting costs claimed by the appellants (ATCO Utilities) - The Commission determined that it had the authority to manage and assess the legal costs of all regulated utilities in Alberta in proceedings before it and to establish rules and guidelines for the recovery of such legal costs - The ATCO Utilities were granted leave to appeal on the following question: "Did the Commission err in law or jurisdiction by denying or limiting recovery of the Appellants' claimed regulatory costs and by treating the costs of or incidental to any hearing or other proceeding of the Commission differently than other costs?" - With respect to the standard of review, the ATCO Utilities asserted that the court should apply the standard of correctness because the Commission's decisions on costs involved a question of "true jurisdiction" - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the Commission's decisions on legal costs do not involve questions of true jurisdiction - Its decision to award costs to the ATCO Utilities on a basis other than as prudently incurred costs did not require it to determine whether it was statutorily permitted "to decide a particular matter" - The court concluded that "the Commission made its legal costs decisions on the basis of its interpretation of the [Alberta Utilities Commission] Act. As this is its home statute, reasonableness presumptively applies and the ATCO Utilities have been unsuccessful in establishing that the applicable standard of review should be correctness. Accordingly, the Commission's conclusion that it has the statutory authority to award legal costs in the exercise of its reasonable discretion separate and apart from prudently incurred costs recoverable under the Act is to be assessed for reasonableness." - See paragraphs 58 to 69.

Cases Noticed:

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta Utilities Commission et al. (2014), 566 A.R. 323; 597 W.A.C. 323; 2014 ABCA 28, refd to. [para. 17].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; 344 N.R. 293; 380 A.R. 1; 363 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 4, refd to. [paras. 20, 165].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) et al. (2008), 433 A.R. 183; 429 W.A.C. 183; 2008 ABCA 200, leave to appeal refused (2008), 392 N.R. 390; 469 A.R. 396; 470 W.A.C. 396 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) et al., [2009] A.R. Uned. 373; 2008 ABCA 381, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 18].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta Utilities Commission et al., [2008] A.R. Uned. 355; 2008 ABCA 382, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 18].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) et al. (2009), 454 A.R. 176; 455 W.A.C. 176; 2009 ABCA 171, leave to appeal refused (2010), 404 N.R. 396; 487 A.R. 403; 495 W.A.C. 403 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta Utilities Commission et al. (2009), 464 A.R. 275; 467 W.A.C. 275; 2009 ABCA 246, leave to appeal refused (2010), 404 N.R. 399; 487 A.R. 404; 495 W.A.C. 404 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

FortisAlberta Inc. v. Alberta Utilities Commission et al., [2014] A.R. Uned. 186; 2014 ABCA 264, refd to. [para. 46].

National Gallery of Canada v. Canadian Artists' Representation et al. (2014), 458 N.R. 233; 2014 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 58].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895; 452 N.R. 340; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [paras. 58, 146].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 58].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [paras. 58, 146].

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Board of Public Utilities) et al. (2012), 323 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 127; 1004 A.P.R. 127; 2012 NLCA 38, refd to. [para. 58].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2014), 458 N.R. 150; 2014 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 59].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [paras. 59, 146].

Rogers Communications Inc. et al. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada et al., [2012] 2 S.C.R. 283; 432 N.R. 1; 2012 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 60].

Lethbridge Regional Police Service et al. v. Lethbridge Police Association (2013), 542 A.R. 252; 566 W.A.C. 252; 2013 ABCA 47, refd to. [para. 60].

Re:Sound v. Fitness Industry Council of Canada et al. (2014), 455 N.R. 87; 2014 FCA 48, refd to. [para. 60].

VIA Rail Canada Inc. v. Canadian Transportation Agency et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 650; 360 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 62].

Arlington (City) v. Federal Communications Commission (2013), 133 S. Ct. 1863 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 63].

Manitoba v. Russell Inns Ltd. et al. (2013), 291 Man.R.(2d) 244; 570 W.A.C. 244; 361 D.L.R.(4th) 581; 2013 MBCA 46, refd to. [para. 64].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 65].

Reference Re Broadcasting Act, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 489; 437 N.R. 124; 2012 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 65, footnote 25].

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Ltd. v. Ontario Energy Board (2008), 93 O.R.(3d) 380 (Div. Ct.), revd. (2010), 261 O.A.C. 306; 99 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2010), 413 N.R. 400; 280 O.A.C. 400, refd to. [para. 66].

Natural Resource Gas Ltd. v. Ontario Energy Board (2006), 214 O.A.C. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 26].

Shaw v. Alberta Utilities Commission et al. (2012), 539 A.R. 315; 561 W.A.C. 315; 2012 ABCA 378, dist. [para. 67].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 75].

Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268; 2002 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 76].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 76].

Stack v. Dowden, [2007] N.R. Uned. 109; [2007] UKHL 17, refd to. [para. 76].

Németh v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 281; 408 N.R. 198; 2010 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 76].

Lévis (City) v. Fraternité des policiers de Lévis Inc. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 591; 359 N.R. 199; 2007 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 76].

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; 334 N.R. 55; 2005 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 77].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15, refd to. [para. 80].

Bell Canada, Re, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 190; 65 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 84, 128].

Northern Engineering & Development Co. v. Philip, [1930] D.L.R. 387; [1930] 1 W.W.R. 615 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

Wood Buffalo (Regional Municipality) v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) et al. (2007), 417 A.R. 222; 410 W.A.C. 222; 2007 ABCA 192, refd to. [para. 98].

Green, Michaels and Associates Ltd., Edmonton (City) and Consumer's Association of Canada (Alberta Branch) v. Public Utilities Board (1979), 13 A.R. 574; 94 D.L.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 99, 128].

Consumers' Association of Canada (Alta.) and Edmonton (City) v. Public Utilities Board (1985), 58 A.R. 72 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

Kelly et al. v. Energy Resources Conservation Board (Alta.) et al. (2012), 519 A.R. 284; 539 W.A.C. 284; 2012 ABCA 19, refd to. [para. 99].

Parada v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) et al. (2011), 499 A.R. 169; 514 W.A.C. 169; 2011 ABCA 44, refd to. [para. 99].

Martin v. Workers' Compensation Board (Alta.) et al., [2014] 1 S.C.R. 546; 455 N.R. 331; 569 A.R. 6; 606 W.A.C. 6; 2014 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 99].

Lavesta Area Group et al. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) et al., [2009] A.R. Uned. 31; 2009 ABCA 155, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 40].

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro v. Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities (1979), 24 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 317; 65 A.P.R. 317 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 101, footnote 40].

Facility Association v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld. and Lab.) et al. (2004), 237 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 285; 703 A.P.R. 285; 2004 NLSCTD 81, affd. (2005), 250 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 746 A.P.R. 1; 2005 NLCA 56, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 40].

Munn v. Illinois (1876), 94 U.S. 113 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 107, footnote 41].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Toronto (City) (1893), 23 S.C.R. 514, refd to. [para. 108].

Oncor Electric Delivery Co. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas (2013), 406 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. App. Ct.), refd to. [para. 110, footnote 45].

Texas Industrial Energy Consumers v. Centerpoint Energy Houston Electric (2010), 324 S.W.3d 95 (Tex. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 110, footnote 45].

ATCO Electric Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) (2004), 361 A.R. 1; 339 W.A.C. 1; 2004 ABCA 215, refd to. [para. 114].

Reference Re National Energy Board Act, [1986] 3 F.C. 275; 69 N.R. 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 128].

Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Ontario Energy Board (2006), 210 O.A.C. 4 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2006), 361 N.R. 397; 228 O.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 143].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) (2005), 367 A.R. 54; 346 W.A.C. 54; 2005 ABCA 122, refd to. [para. 145].

Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [1929] S.C.R. 186; [1929] 2 D.L.R. 4, refd to. [para. 146].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Assembly, 3rd Sess., 26th Legislature (15 November 2007), p. 2005 [para. 94, footnote 33].

Alberta Utilities Commission, Alberta's Energy Market, http://www.auc.ab.ca/market-oversight/albertas-energy-market/Pages/default.aspx, generally [para. 10, footnote 3].

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (5th Ed. 2009), p. 525 [para. 146].

Keeping, Janet, Intervenors' Costs (1990), 3 Can. J. Admin. L. & Prac. 81, p. 86 [para. 95, footnote 34].

Kenall, Dustin, De-Regulating the Regulatory Compact: The Legacy of Dunsmuir and the "Jurisdictional" Question Doctrine (2011), 24 Can. J. Admin. L. & Prac. 115, generally [para. 66].

Nicolay, Terra, Regulation by Any Other Name: Electricity Deregulation in Alberta and the Power Purchase Agreements (2011), 29:1 J. Energy & Natural Res. L. 45, generally [para. 12, footnote 5].

Phipson, Sidney Lovell, The Law of Evidence (18th Ed. 2013), pp. 160 to 161; paras. 6-02 to 6-03 [para. 143].

Rose, Kenneth, An Economic and Legal Perspective on Electric Utility Transition Costs (1996), p. 43 [para. 109].

Ryan, Michael H., Telecommunications Carriers and the "Duty to Serve" (2012), 57:3 McGill L.J. 519, pp. 522 to 534 [para. 107, footnote 42]; 537 [para. 108, footnote 43].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 24 to 25 [para. 76]; 210 [para. 75]; 224 [para. 76].

Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Rev. 1981), §§ 2486 to 2487 [para. 143].

Counsel:

L.E. Smith, Q.C. and E.B. Mellett, for the appellants;

R.J. Finn, for the respondent, Alberta Utilities Commission;

T.A. Shipley, for the respondent, Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate of Alberta.

These appeals were heard on May 9, 2014, by Fraser, C.J.A., Côté and Martin, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on December 2, 2014, and included the following opinions:

Fraser, C.J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 125;

Côté, J.A., concurring in the result - see paragraphs 126 to 161;

Martin, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 162 to 177.