Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Requests for Regulatory Appeal by Werner Ambros and Sharon Ambros Encana Corporation (Requests for Regulatory Appeal Nos. 1919768 and 1924228)

Link to Decision Summarized

Regulatory Appeal AER


In this decision, the AER considered the requests of Werner Ambros and Sharon Ambros (the “Ambroses”) under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for regulatory appeals of the AER’s decisions to approve three Encana Corporation (“Encana”) applications for multi-well pads with sour gas wells; an application for a sour water pipeline and a sweet gas pipeline; and an application for a sour gas pipeline.

Reasons for decision

The AER found that the Ambroses may be directly and adversely affected by applications for two of the multi-well pads with sour gas wells and the sour gas pipeline because their residence and/or land is within the emergency planning zones for these approvals. The AER cited the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Kelly v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board) 2009 ABCA 349 in support of this finding. 

The AER held that it was required to hold a hearing pursuant to section 4 of the Responsible Energy Development Act General Regulation, which requires a hearing if the concerns of the eligible person requesting a regulatory appeal have not been addressed through an alternative dispute resolution process, or otherwise resolved between the parties.  

Related Posts

Judd v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 154

Judd v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 154

Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Appeal – Production of Records Application Michael Judd ("Appellant") appealed a decision by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) that denied his...