Giant Grosmont Petroleums Ltd. et al. v. Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. et al., 2001 ABCA 174

• Judge: Conrad, O'Leary and Picard, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 14, 2000
• Citations: 2001 ABCA 174;(2001), 286 A.R. 146 (CA)

Giant Grosmont v. Gulf Can. Resources (2001), 286 A.R. 146 (CA);

    253 W.A.C. 146

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. JL.042

Giant Grosmont Petroleums Ltd., NAL Resources Ltd., Northstar Energy Corporation Ltd., Renaissance Energy Ltd., Ocean Energy Resources Canada, Ltd., Paramount Resources Ltd., Purcell Energy Ltd. (appellants/applicants) v. Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. and Petro-Canada (respondents/respondents) and the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (respondent)

(99-18558; 2001 ABCA 174)

Indexed As: Giant Grosmont Petroleums Ltd. et al. v. Gulf Canada Resources Ltd. et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Conrad, O'Leary and Picard, JJ.A.

June 29, 2001.

Summary:

The applicants sought a declaration that the Oil and Gas Conservation Amendment Regu­lation 47/99 and the Oil Sands Conservation Amendment Regulation 48/99 were ultra vires the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. The impugned regulations regulated the concurrent production of gas and bitumen where they occurred in association.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, concluded that the regulations were intra vires the Board and dismissed the applica­tion. The applicants appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Conrad, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Mines and Minerals - Topic 8008

Oil and gas - General - Interpretation of legislation - The applicants sought a dec­laration that the Oil and Gas Conservation Amendment Regulation 47/99 and the Oil Sands Conservation Amendment Regula­tion 48/99, which regulated the concurrent production of gas and bitumen where they occurred in association, were ultra vires the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board - Express legislative provisions under the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OCGA) dealing with similar matters were repealed in 1983 - The applicants argued that there was no enabling legislative provision permitting the Board to pass the regulations - The repeal and the failure to include such a provision in the new legislation indicated an intention not to confer this power on the Board (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) - A chambers judge held that the objects and stated purposes of the legisla­tion made it clear that prevention of waste and conservation of resources went to the very root of the Board's purpose and exist­ence and that s. 21 of the Oil Sands Con­servation Act and s. 10 of the OGCA expressly empowered the Board to pass regulations for these purposes - The Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed the decision - See paragraphs 1 to 46.

Mines and Minerals - Topic 8401

Oil and gas - Wells - Regulation - General - [See Mines and Minerals - Topic 8008 ].

Statutes - Topic 1554

Interpretation - Construction where mean­ing is not plain - Implied meaning - Stat­ing one thing implies exclusion of another (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) - [See Mines and Minerals - Topic 8008 ].

Statutes - Topic 5367

Operation and effect - Delegated legisla­tion - Regulations - Validity of - Ultra vires - Whether purpose authorized by empowering statute - [See Mines and Minerals - Topic 8008 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Gisby (K.) et al. (2000), 271 A.R. 303; 234 W.A.C. 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 10].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1722; 97 N.R. 15; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 682, refd to. [paras. 13, 97].

Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers, Daw­son Lodge No. 1 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 571; 194 N.R. 81; 72 B.C.A.C. 1; 119 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 16].

Milk Board (B.C.) v. Grisnich et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 895; 183 N.R. 39; 61 B.C.A.C. 81; 100 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 17].

Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada and Canada (Minister of Economic Develop­ment), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2; 44 N.R. 354, refd to. [para. 18].

Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agricul­ture), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385; 133 N.R. 345; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 218, refd to. [para. 28].

Coalition of Citizens Impacted by the Caroline Shell Plant v. Energy and Utili­ties Board (Alta.) et al. (1996), 187 A.R. 205; 127 W.A.C. 205; 41 Alta. L.R.(3d) 374 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

New Brunswick (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v. Bathurst Paper Ltd. (1971), 4 N.B.R.(2d) 96; 22 D.L.R.(3d) 115 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 41].

Air Canada v. Dorval (City) (1985), 59 N.R. 177 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Greenbaum (M.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 674; 149 N.R. 114; 61 O.A.C. 241; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 183, refd to. [para. 67].

Jacobs Farm Ltd. et al. v. Agricultural Stabilization Board, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 125; 40 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 69].

Beau Canada Exploration Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) et al. (2000), 261 A.R. 131; 225 W.A.C. 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Winnipeg (City) v. Morguard Properties Ltd. et al., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 493; 50 N.R. 264; 25 Man.R.(2d) 302; 3 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 82].

Winnipeg (City) v. Workers' Compen­sation Board (Man.) (1988), 51 Man.R.(2d) 44; 48 D.L.R.(4th) 585 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Frobisher Ltd. v. Oak (1956), 20 W.W.R.(N.S.) 345 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Dart (Steve) Co. v. Duer (D.J.) & Co. (1974), 46 D.L.R.(3d) 745 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 82].

Heppner v. Minister of Environment - see Heppner v. Alberta.

Heppner v. Alberta (1977), 6 A.R. 154; 4 Alta. L.R.(2d) 139 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83].

Aurora TV and Radio Ltd. v. Gelco Ex­press Ltd. (1990), 65 Man.R.(2d) 145; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Newfield Seeds Ltd. (1989), 80 Sask.R. 134; 63 D.L.R.(4th) 644 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

Morrison v. Kingston (City), [1937] 4 D.L.R. 740 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

Reference Re National Energy Board Act (1986), 69 N.R. 174; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 35 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 97].

Statutes Noticed:

Oil and Gas Conservation Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. O-5, sect. 4 [para. 24, footnote 4]; sect. 10(1)(g.02), sect. 10(1)(l) [para. 33]; sect. 10(1)(y) [paras. 14, 33].

Oil Sands Conservation Act, S.A. 1983, c. O-5.5, sect. 3 [para. 27, footnote 5]; sect. 21(1)(g), sect. 21(1)(u) [paras. 14, 33].

Oil and Gas Conservation Act Regulations (Alta.), Oil and Gas Conservation Amendment Regulation, Reg. 47/99, generally [para. 1, footnote 1]; sect. 3 [para. 59].

Oil and Gas Conservation Amendment Regulation, Reg. 47/99 - see Oil and Gas Conservation Act Regulations (Alta.), Oil and Gas Conservation Amendment Regu­lation, Reg. 47/99.

Oil Sands Conservation Act Regulations (Alta.), Oil Sands Conservation Amend­ment Regulation, Reg. 48/99, generally [para. 1, footnote 1], sect. 3 [para. 58].

Oil Sands Conservation Amendment Regu­lation, Reg. 48/99 - see Oil Sands Con­servation Act Regulations (Alta.), Oil Sands Conservation Amendment Regula­tion, Reg. 48/99.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, D., and Evans, J., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998) (Looseleaf), paras. 13:1100 [para. 17]; 13:1310 [para. 18].

Côté, Pierre-André M., The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), p. 282 [para. 69].

Craies on Statute Law (1971), p. 259 [para. 69].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 248 [para. 82].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 170 [para. 69]; 285 [para. 21]; 450, 451 [para. 41].

Counsel:

J.W. Rose, Q.C., and T.F. Mayson, for the appellants;

F.R. Foran, Q.C., for the respondent, Gulf Canada Resources Ltd.;

W.T. Corbett, Q.C., for the respondent, Petro-Canada;

D. Larder, for the respondent, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board.

This appeal was heard at Calgary, Alberta, on September 14, 2000, by Conrad, O'Leary and Picard, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was re­leased on June 29, 2001, and the following opinions were filed:

Picard, J.A. (O'Leary, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 46;

Conrad, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 47 to 105.