Harris v. Nugent et al., (1996) 193 A.R. 113 (CA)

• Judge: Lieberman, Côté and Hunt, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: November 05, 1996
• Citations: (1996), 193 A.R. 113 (CA)

Harris v. Nugent (1996), 193 A.R. 113 (CA);

    135 W.A.C. 113

MLB headnote and full text

Joe W. Harris (plaintiff/respondent) v. Cinabar Enterprises Ltd. and Larry B. Nugent (defendants/appellants) and Enstar Petroleum Ltd., Ashland Oil Canada Limited, Kaiser Oil Ltd., Arctic Slope Oil Ltd., First Tier Energy Ltd., Black Gold Oil & Gas Ltd., Intensity Resources Ltd. and Amoco Canada Resources Ltd. (defendants/not parties to appeal)

(Appeal No. 16209)

Indexed As: Harris v. Nugent et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Lieberman, Côté and Hunt, JJ.A.

December 2, 1996.

Summary:

At issue in this case was whether a "sur­render or termination" occurred such as to trigger a clause in a royalty agreement ter­minating the royalty payable to Harris.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 172 A.R. 309, held that Harris remained entitled to a royalty. The defendants, Nugent and Cinabar Enterprises, appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that Harris's right to a roy­alty had lapsed.

Mines and Minerals - Topic 8163

Oil and gas - Royalty agreements - Ter­mination - At issue in this case was whether a "surrender or termination" occurred such as to trigger a clause (Clause 6) in a royalty agreement termin­ating the royalty payable to Harris - The Alberta Court of Appeal interpreted the royalty agreement and a related farm-out agreement and determined that clause 6 was triggered and Harris's right to a roy­alty had lapsed.

Restitution - Topic 61

Unjust enrichment - General - At issue in this case was whether a "surrender or termination" occurred such as to trigger a clause (Clause 6) in a royalty agreement termin­ating the royalty payable to Harris - The Alberta Court of Appeal interpreted the royalty agreement and a related farm-out agreement and determined that clause 6 was triggered and Harris's right to a roy­alty had lapsed - The court also rejected a claim by Harris based on unjust enrich­ment, stating that "where the parties have occupied the field with contracts, the courts should be slow to find a gap to fill with unjust enrichment" - See paragraph 40.

Cases Noticed:

Montreal Trust Co. v. Gulf Securities, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 708; 13 N.R. 60, dist. [para. 17].

Luscar Ltd. and Norcen Energy Resources Ltd. v. Pembina Resources Ltd. (1995), 162 A.R. 35 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

P.J. McGovern, for the plain­tiff/respondent;

J.P. Petch, for the defendants/appellants.

This appeal was heard on November 5, 1996, before Lieberman, Côté and Hunt, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the court on December 2, 1996.