Ferguson et al. v. Ranger Oil Ltd., (1995) 174 A.R. 53 (CA)

• Judge: O'Leary, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: July 11, 1995
• Citations: (1995), 174 A.R. 53 (CA)

Ferguson v. Ranger Oil Ltd. (1995), 174 A.R. 53 (CA);

    102 W.A.C. 53

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of Section 26(8) of the Surface Rights Act

Ranger Oil Limited (appellant/applicant) v. Lyle George Ferguson, L.G. Ferguson Farms Ltd., Nickolas Andruckow, Eleanor Mary Andruckow, Norma Margaret Lutz, Matlock Farms Ltd., Richard Brian Geschwendt, Fred G. Geschwendt, Walter Samuel Rhodes, June Audrey Rhodes, David Rhodes, Les Rhodes and Agnes Lillian Ferguson (respondents)

(Appeal No. 15868)

Indexed As: Ferguson et al. v. Ranger Oil Ltd.

Alberta Court of Appeal

O'Leary, J.A.

August 10, 1995.

Summary:

The Surface Rights Board granted Ranger Oil Ltd. fourteen separate rights of entry orders respecting land owned or farmed by Ferguson et al. Negotiations ensued respect­ing compensation, but no agreement was reached. Therefore, a compensation hearing was held by the Surface Rights Board and a decision rendered. Ferguson et al. appealed the compensation provided for general dis­turbance and adverse effect.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 168 A.R. 1, allowed the appeal and recalculated the compensation awards accordingly. Ranger Oil applied for leave to appeal on four grounds.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per O'Leary, J.A., granted leave to appeal on two grounds. The court refused to grant leave on the other two grounds.

Mines and Minerals - Topic 6113

Operation of mines, quarries and wells - Compensation to owners of surface rights - Appeals - Section 26(8) of the Surface Rights Act allowed a party to apply for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per O'Leary, J.A., stated that "leave should be granted if one or more of the grounds of appeal raised has a reasonable prospect of success and that success would have a significant impact on the parties. Leave should also be granted where the appeal raises a question of law or procedure of importance to the oper­ation of the Act." - See paragraph 6.

Cases Noticed:

Esso Resources Canada Ltd. v. Maine et al. (1985), 62 A.R. 155; 33 L.C.R. 8 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

TransAlta Utilities Corp. v. Kube et al., [1987] A.W.L.D. 333; [1987] C.L.D. 306; 77 A.R. 290; 37 L.C.R. 228 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

Saint John v. Irving Oil Co. (1966), 58 D.L.R.(2d) 404 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 202, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 76 C.R.(3d) 329; [1990] 4 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Sandboe et al. v. Coseka Resources Ltd. (1990), 108 A.R. 226 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

Esso Resources Canada Ltd. v. Smulski et al. (1981), 18 Alta. L.R.(2d) 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Surface Rights Act, S.A. 1983, c. S-27.1, sect. 26(1), sect. 26(6), sect. 26(7) [para. 8]; sect. 26(8) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Kerans, R.P., Standards of Review Employed by Appellate Courts (1994), p. 70 [para. 3].

Todd, Eric C.E., The Law of Expropriation and Compensation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1992), p. 179 [para. 14]; 196 [para. 18].

Counsel:

G.T.H. Locke, for the appellant;

B.K. O'Ferrall and S. Munro, for the re­spondents.

This appeal was heard on July 11, 1995, before O'Leary, J.A., in Chambers, of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on August 10, 1995.