Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. v. 826167 Alberta Inc.,

• Judge: McFadyen, Costigan and Paperny, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2007 ABCA 131
• Date: 12 April 2007
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Imperial Oil Resources v. 826167 Alta. (2007), 404 A.R. 212 (CA);

      394 W.A.C. 212

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. AP.081

Imperial Oil Resources Limited (respondent/respondent/operator) v. 826167 Alberta Inc. (appellant/appellant/surface owner)

(0501-0123-AC; 2007 ABCA 131)

Indexed As: Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. v. 826167 Alberta Inc.

Alberta Court of Appeal

McFadyen, Costigan and Paperny, JJ.A.

April 16, 2007.

Summary:

The Surface Rights Board held a hearing to determine the compensation payable by the respondent to the appellant landowner with respect to natural resource wells operated on the appellant's land. The Board increased the compensation payable from $95,191.50 to $179,750. The respondent appealed under s. 26 of the Surface Rights Act.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in a decision reported at [2005] A.R. Uned. 389 allowed the appeal and reduced the compensation to $120,340. The appellant was granted leave to appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Mines and Minerals - Topic 6144

Operation of mines, quarries and wells - Compensation to owners of surface rights - Awards - Judicial review of awards - Scope of - The Surface Rights Board held a hearing to determine the compensation payable by the respondent to the appellant landowner with respect to natural resource wells operated on the appellant's land - The Board increased the compensation payable from $95,191.50 to $179,750 - The respondent appealed under s. 26 of the Surface Rights Act - The appeal judge conducted a hearing de novo, allowed the appeal and reduced the compensation to $120,340 - The appellant appealed - At issue was the appropriate standard of review - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the pragmatic and functional analysis was applicable even when a statutory appeal from an administrative body to a court was by way of a hearing de novo - The court applied the analysis and held that the standard of review of the Board's compensation award was reasonableness - See paragraphs 6 to 18.

Mines and Minerals - Topic 6150

Operation of mines, quarries and wells - Compensation to owners of surface rights - Awards - General - The Surface Rights Board held a hearing to determine the compensation payable by the respondent to the appellant landowner with respect to natural resource wells operated on the appellant's land - The Board increased the compensation payable from $95,191.50 to $179,750 - The respondent appealed under s. 26 of the Surface Rights Act - The appeal judge conducted a hearing de novo, allowed the appeal and reduced the compensation to $120,340 - The Board overlooked relevant evidence in accepting the pattern of dealings put forward by the appellant over the pattern of dealings with major producers on adjacent lands - Further, the Board failed to articulate the compensation payable by reference to the principles of "loss of use" and "adverse effect", as required by the Act - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal - The decision was reasonable - See paragraphs 19 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 6].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 6].

Whitehouse and Whitehouse v. Sun Oil Co., [1982] 6 W.W.R. 289; 40 A.R. 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Ingamo Hall Friendship Centre v. Bergeron, [2003] Northwest Terr. Cases 44; 2003 NWTSC 44, refd to. [para. 9].

Garbo Group Inc. v. Brown (Harriet) & Co. et al. (1999), 176 F.T.R. 80; 23 Admin. L.R.(3d) 153 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. et al. (2006), 348 N.R. 340; 2006 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 10].

Lamb v. Canadian Reserve Oil & Gas Ltd., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 517; 8 N.R. 613; [1976] 4 W.W.R. 79, refd to. [para. 11].

Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. et al. (1987), 81 N.R. 28; 17 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Livingston v. Siebens Oil & Gas Ltd., [1978] 3 W.W.R. 484; 8 A.R. 439 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Petryshen v. Nova, an Alberta Corp. (1982), 23 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Counsel:

J.L. Lebo, Q.C., J.Y. Pak and P.L. Miller, for the respondent;

S.C. Stenbeck, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on April 12, 2007, by McFadyen, Costigan and Paperny, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the court on April 16, 2007.