Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Request for Regulatory Appeal by Ervin and Rita Callan ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corp. Application No.: 1896604, AER Regulatory Appeal No.: 1917192

Link to Decision Summarized

Regulatory Appeal

In this decision, the AER considered Ervin and Rita Callan’s request under Section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for a regulatory appeal of the AER’s decision to approve certain licences of ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corp. (“Conoco”). The AER decided that Mr. and Ms. Callan were not directly and adversely affected by the decision. The request for a regulatory appeal was therefore dismissed.

Reasons for Decision

The decision that was the subject matter of this appeal request was a Class II oilfield waste management facility approval issued pursuant to the Oil and Gas Conservation Act and Rules.

The Callans asserted their rights to harvest and carry out their aboriginal way of life in relation to a trapline. However, there was no information in the grounds for the regulatory appeal request that demonstrated how the Callans’ trapping, harvesting and other activities may be affected by the approved oilfield waste landfill. No information was provided regarding any specific locations of trapping or other activities or assets that are on or near the proposed landfill. In the absence of such information, the Callans failed to demonstrate that they are or may be impacted by the approved landfill.

The Callans also asserted that they had a right to be consulted about the landfill; however, the AER has no jurisdiction with respect to assessing the adequacy of Crown consultation associated with the rights of aboriginal peoples. The AER noted that the Aboriginal Consultation Office issued its consultation adequacy decision, relating to the issuance of the Miscellaneous Lease under the Public Lands Act application for this project on March 13, 2018.

Regarding the Callans’ concerns about a lack of information, the AER noted that Conoco complied with all AER notification and participant involvement requirements in respect of the approved landfill.

The AER noted that the Callans did not file a reply submission to challenge any of Conoco’s responses.


The AER found that the Callans did not demonstrate that they are or may be directly and adversely affected by the AER’s decision to approve the oilfield waste landfill, and were therefore not ‘eligible persons’ under the REDA. The request for regulatory appeal was dismissed.

Related Posts

Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8

Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8

Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Administrative Law – Judicial Review v. Statutory Appeal Application Ummugulsum Yatar (“Ms. Yatar”) contested the denial of her insurance...