Epcor Power L.P. v. Petrobank Energy and Resources Ltd., 2010 ABQB 463

• Judge: Martin, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 16, 2010
• Citations: 2010 ABQB 463;(2010), 495 A.R. 173 (QB)

Epcor Power L.P. v. Petrobank Energy (2010), 495 A.R. 173 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. JL.084

Epcor Power L.P. (applicant) v. Petrobank Energy and Resources Ltd. (respondent)

(0901 18294; 2010 ABQB 463)

Indexed As: Epcor Power L.P. v. Petrobank Energy and Resources Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Martin, J.

July 7, 2010.

Summary:

A seller under a 21-year gas sales contract issued an arbitration notice to the buyer respecting a dispute over the price of the gas. The buyer brought a motion asking the court to strike the arbitration notice on the ground that it was issued outside the two-year limitation period.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion.

Arbitration - Topic 102

Right to arbitration - What matters arbitrable - On August 24, 2009, a seller under a 21-year gas sales contract issued an arbitration notice to the buyer respecting a dispute over the price of the gas - The buyer brought a motion asking the court to strike the arbitration notice on the ground that it was issued outside the two-year limitation period - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion - On any analysis there remained something to go to arbitration (e.g., future losses) - While the court had accepted the buyer's arguments about the limitation period for the purposes of analysis only, it made no finding that any of the buyer's claims were statute-barred - Given that the matter would proceed to arbitration in any event, it was not appropriate for the court to make its own findings about limitation matters, even concerning past losses - Litigation in instalments was to be discouraged - The controversy involved mixed questions of law and fact and was better suited to arbitration - It would be up to the arbitrator to determine what factors bore on the limitation issue, including what, if any arrangement, arose in 2003; what arose from the parties' September 25, 2006 meeting; and what, if any, impact the parties' conduct had on the running of any applicable limitation period (i.e., doctrine of promissory estoppel).

Arbitration - Topic 102

Right to arbitration - What matters arbitrable - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The Court may, but need not, send pure questions of law to the arbitrator. It is to be noted that under s. 17(2) of the Arbitration Act, an arbitrator may determine any question of law that arises during the arbitration. Thus a court may consider the preliminary issue of whether there is anything to be submitted to arbitration." - See paragraph 69.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 4802

Arbitration - General - Application of Limitations Acts - [See first Arbitration - Topic 102 ].

Cases Noticed:

Suncor Energy Products Inc. v. Howe-Baker Engineers Ltd. (2010), 492 A.R. 288; 2010 ABQB 310, refd to. [para. 41].

Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd. v. Agrium Inc. (2003), 347 A.R. 107; 2003 ABQB 1004, revd. (2005), 363 A.R. 103; 343 W.A.C. 103; 2005 ABCA 82, refd to. [para. 41].

Penhold (Town) v. Boulder Contracting Ltd. (2009), 492 A.R. 132; 2009 ABQB 550, refd to. [para. 41].

Hill v. Registrar of South Alberta Land Registration District (1993), 135 A.R. 266; 33 W.A.C. 266; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Terroco Industries Ltd. v. Sovereign General Insurance Co. (2007), 404 A.R. 252; 394 W.A.C. 252; 2007 ABCA 149, refd to. [para. 54].

Rolls-Royce Industries (Canada) Inc. et al. v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. of Canada et al. (1996), 8 O.T.C. 128; 8 C.P.C.(4th) 164 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 54].

Hussaini v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1999), 92 O.T.C. 312; 11 C.C.L.I.(3d) 194 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 54].

Shell Canada Ltd. v. Vector Energy Inc. (1989), 101 A.R. 226 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 64].

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; 366 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 34, folld. [para. 66].

Autoweld Systems Ltd. v. CRC-Evans Pipeline International Inc. et al., [2009] A.R. Uned. 314; 2009 ABCA 366, consd. [para. 68].

Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp. (2010), 401 N.R. 341; 482 A.R. 1; 490 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 70].

Novak et al. v. Bond, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 808; 239 N.R. 134; 122 B.C.A.C. 161; 200 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 70].

Murphy v. Welsh, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1069; 156 N.R. 263; 65 O.A.C. 103, addendum 157 N.R. 372; 66 O.A.C. 240, refd to. [para. 70].

Vong v. Wong et al. (2004), 354 A.R. 342; 329 W.A.C. 342; 2004 ABCA 216, refd to. [para. 70].

Ruzicka v. Costigan (1984), 54 A.R. 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Meek (James H.) Trust et al. v. San Juan Resources Inc. et al. (2005), 376 A.R. 202; 360 W.A.C. 202; 2005 ABCA 448, refd to. [para. 73].

Brar v. Roy (2005), 371 A.R. 290; 354 W.A.C. 290; 2005 ABCA 269, refd to. [para. 80].

Maracle v. Travellers Indemnity Co. of Canada, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 50; 125 N.R. 294; 47 O.A.C. 333, refd to. [para. 84].

Counsel:

Gordon L. Tarnowsky and Jordan R. McJannet, for the applicant;

Catherine Crang, for the respondent.

This motion was heard on June 16, 2010, by Martin, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on July 7, 2010.