BP Canada Energy Co. et al. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), (2003) 356 A.R. 363 (QB)

• Judge: Hillier, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 03, 2003
• Citations: (2003), 356 A.R. 363 (QB);2003 ABQB 875

BP Can. Energy Co. v. EUB (2003), 356 A.R. 363 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. DE.016

BP Canada Energy Company, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Devon Canada Corporation, Paramount Energy Trust and Progas Limited (applicants) v. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (respondent)

(0301-13137; 2003 ABQB 875)

Indexed As: BP Canada Energy Co. et al. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Hillier, J.

October 23, 2003.

Summary:

The Energy and Utilities Board issued a General Bulletin and orders shutting in more than 930 gas wells as part of a conservation strategy for underlying bitumen. Energy companies applied for judicial review of the orders, submitting that they were ultra vires the Board and were issued in breach of the principles of natural justice. Contemporaneously, the companies applied under s. 26 of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Act for leave to appeal. At issue on a preliminary motion was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the judicial review application (or an application for declaratory relief under rule 410(e)) and, if so, whether the court should decline jurisdiction in favour of the statutory appeal.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench declined jurisdiction where the statutory appeal was an adequate, and preferable remedy, and there existed no exceptional circumstances for the court to exercise its jurisdiction.

Administrative Law - Topic 5192

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretionary bars to issue of certiorari - Existence of another remedy - Adequacy of - The Energy and Utilities Board issued a General Bulletin and orders shutting in more than 930 gas wells as part of a conservation strategy for underlying bitumen - Energy companies applied for judicial review of the orders, submitting that they were ultra vires the Board and were issued in breach of the principles of natural justice - Contemporaneously, the companies applied under s. 26 of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Act for leave to appeal - At issue on a preliminary motion was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the judicial review application (or an application for declaratory relief under rule 410(e)) and, if so, whether the court should decline jurisdiction in favour of the statutory appeal - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench declined jurisdiction where the statutory appeal was an adequate, and preferable remedy, and there existed no exceptional circumstances for the court to exercise its jurisdiction.

Administrative Law - Topic 7096

Judicial review - Bars - Discretionary bars - Existence of convenient or adequate alternative remedy - [See Administrative Law - Topic 5192 ].

Practice - Topic 5666

Judgments and orders - Declaratory judgments - Bars - Adequate alternate remedy - [See Administrative Law - Topic 5192 ].

Cases Noticed:

Giant Grosmont Petroleums Ltd. et al. v. Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 146; 253 W.A.C. 146; 93 Alta. L.R.(3d) 242; 2001 ABCA 174, refd to. [para. 9].

BP Canada Energy Co. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2003] A.R. Uned. 584; 2003 ABCA 285, refd to. [para. 20].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 29].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Alberta et al. (2002), 310 A.R. 240 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Rozander and Groeneveld v. Energy Resources Conservation Board and Calgary Power Limited (1978), 13 A.R. 461; 8 Alta. L.R.(2d) 203 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Fooks and Johnstone v. Alberta Association of Architects (1982), 38 A.R. 132; 139 D.L.R.(3d) 445 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

Bromley v. Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists (Alta.) (1989), 93 A.R. 185; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 325 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

North American Montessori Academy v. Development Appeal Board of Edmonton (1977), 7 A.R. 39 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 42].

Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v. Alberta et al., [1978] 3 W.W.R. 63; 11 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

Friends of the Oldman River Society et al. v. Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists (Alta.) et al., [1998] 5 W.W.R. 179; 208 A.R. 28 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

Broda v. Edmonton (City) (1989), 102 A.R. 255 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

Hamilton v. Board of Education of Wild Rose School Division No. 66 et al. (2002), 314 A.R. 340 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

Edmonton Telephones Corp. v. Stephenson et al. (1994), 160 A.R. 352; 24 Alta. L.R.(3d) 96 (Q.B.), affd. (1994), 162 A.R. 139; 83 W.A.C. 139; 26 Alta. L.R.(3d) 33 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 684; 23 N.R. 565; 12 A.R. 449, refd to. [para. 54].

Alberta Energy Co. v. Goodwell Petroleum Corp. et al. (2003), 339 A.R. 210; 312 W.A.C. 201; 2003 ABCA 277, refd to. [para. 54].

Chapparal Land & Cattle Co. v. Calgary (City) (1997), 196 A.R. 289; 141 W.A.C. 289; 50 Alta. L.R.(3d) 30 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Counsel:

A.L. McLarty, Q.C., and T.F. Mayson, for the applicants, BP Canada Energy Co. and Progas Ltd.;

H.M. Kay, Q.C., for the applicants, Devon Canada Corp. and Paramount Energy Trust;

P.J. McGovern, for the applicant, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.;

R.A. McLennan, Q.C., and T.W.R. Ross, for the respondent, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board.

This matter was heard on October 3, 2003, before Hillier, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on October 23, 2003.