Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Search Results

These articles by our expert team cover the details of various decisions made by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), Alberta Utilities Commision (AUC), and Canada Energy Regulator (CER). Browse our searchable archive below to learn more about the results we’ve achieved for our clients.

AlphaBow Energy Ltd v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2023 ABCA 221

Link to Decision Summarized Permission to Appeal Application AlphaBow Energy Ltd. (“AlphaBow”) applied for permission to appeal a decision of the AER that dismissed its request to stay a reasonable care and measures order (“RCAM Order”) issued by the AER. AlphaBow...

TransAlta Corporation v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2023 ABCA 172

Link to Decision Summarized Oil/Gas - Water – Permission to Appeal Application TransAlta Corporation (“TransAlta”) brought three applications for permission to appeal decisions of the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”). Decision The two applications for permission to...

Sabo v AltaLink, 2022 ABCA 233

Link to Decision SummarizedPermission to Appeal - ElectricityIn this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) granted permission to appeal to AltaLink Management Ltd. (the “Applicant”). The Applicant applied for permission to appeal the decision of the Alberta...

EQUS REA Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2019 ABCA 277

Link to decision summarizedELECTRICITY - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL DENIED In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered EQUS REA Ltd. (“EQUS”)’s application for permission to appeal AUC Decision 22164-D01-2018 (the “AUC Decision”). The...

Fort McKay First Nation v Prosper Petroleum Ltd., 2019 ABCA 14

The ABCA granted the First Nation permission to appeal on the following question:

• Did the AER commit an error of law or jurisdiction by failing to consider the honour of the Crown and, as a result, failing to delay approval of the Project until the First Nation’s negotiations with Alberta about the MLAMP were completed?

Blair v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2018 ABCA 438

In this decision, the ABCA considered an application by a number of landowners’ (the “Applicants”) for permission to appeal AUC Decision 22665-D01-2018 (the “AUC Decision”). In the AUC Decision, the AUC approved applications (the “Applications”) by EDP Renewables SH Project GP Ltd. (“EDP”) for approval of the Sharp Hills Wind Project (the “Project”).

The ABCA denied permission to appeal, based on finding that the Applicants did not demonstrate a serious, arguable question of law or jurisdiction arising from the AUC Decision.

Capital Power Corp. v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2018 ABCA 437

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered applications by Capital Power Corporation (“Capital Power”), ENMAX Energy Corporation (“ENMAX”), and TransAlta Corporation (“TransAlta”) (collectively, the “Applicants”) for permission to appeal AUC Decision 790-D02-2015, which considered complaints regarding the ISO line loss rule and methodology.

The ABCA found that the AUC’s decision that it could order a remedy or relief to correct for the payment and receipt of unlawful line loss charges and credits did not raise questions of law or jurisdiction which required an appeal to the ABCA. Therefore, the ABCA dismissed the applications for permission to appeal.

Cymbaluk v TransAlta Corporation, 2018 ABCA 429

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered an application by David Cymbaluk, Ferne Cymbaluk, and Philip Cymbaluk (the “Cymbaluks”) for permission to appeal a decision of the AER dated September 7, 2018 (the “AER Decision”). The AER Decision addressed the obligations of TransAlta Corporation (“TransAlta”) with respect to the sand, gravel, clay, and marl (the “Subsurface Materials”) removed during the mining operation at TransAlta’s Highvale Coal Mine.

The ABCA denied permission to appeal.

Dorin v EPCOR Distribution and Transmission Inc., 2018 ABCA 427

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered Mark Dorin’s application for permission to appeal AUC Decision 23128-D01-2018 (“the Decision”). In the Decision, the AUC concluded t was in the public interest to approve an application from EPCOR Distribution and Transmission Inc. (“EPCOR”) to construct and operate an electrical substation (the “Substation”) and associated transmission and communications infrastructure (the “Project”) pursuant to section 17 of the Alberta Utilities Commission Act (“AUCA”).

The ABCA granted permission to appeal (in part) on the following question:What was the effect, if any, of the absence of written consent by the Minister of Infrastructure given prior to the making of the Decision by the AUC, on EPCOR’s ability to proceed to have the Substation built and made operational?

Coaldale (Town) v Britz, (2018 ABCA 392)

The ABCA found that the appeal was not sufficiently meritorious under either the reasonableness or correctness standard to justify granting permission to appeal. For the purpose of this application, the ABCA determined that it was not necessary to determine which standard of review would be applied, should permission to appeal be granted.

Macdonald Communities Limited v Alberta (Utilities Commission) (2018 ABCA 317)

This Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) decision considered Macdonald Communities Limited’s (“MCL”) application for permission to appeal the AUC’s findings in AUC Decision 21340-D01-2017, and affirmed in Decision 23203-D01-2018, that the AUC did not have jurisdiction to regulate privately owned wastewater utilities. The ABCA granted MCL permission to appeal, finding that MCL raised a serious arguable question regarding the AUC’s jurisdiction to regulate privately owned wastewater utilities.

ATCO Electric Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission) (2017 ABCA 331)

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered ATCO Electric Ltd.’s (“ATCO”) applications for Permission to Appeal certain aspects of the following AUC decisions:

(a)     Decision 20272-D01-2016 regarding ATCO’s 2015-2017 General Tariff Application (the “2016 GTA Decision”); and

(b)     Decision 22094-D01-2017 regarding ATCO’s application for review of the 2016 GTA Decision (the “2017 Review Decision”).

For the reasons summarized below, the ABCA dismissed ATCO’s applications for permission to appeal the AUC decisions.

Alberta (Utilities Consumer Advocate) v. FortisAlberta Inc. (2016 ABCA 333)

Fortis Alberta Inc. (“Fortis”) acquired land (the “Land”) and contemplated using it for construction of a centralized inventory facility. However, upon review, Fortis determined a decentralized inventory model would be more efficient and therefore no longer needed the Land. Fortis applied to the AUC requesting approval to sell the Land.

Direct Energy Regulated Services v Alberta Utilities Commission, 2016 ABCA 156

The ABCA held that the AUC did not err in law or jurisdiction in selecting the UCA methodology, pointing to the AUC’s finding that there should not be risk compensation in excess of the full recovery of costs related to risk. The ABCA held that DERS had failed to demonstrate a meritorious argument on the questions of law. Accordingly, the ABCA held that Decision 2941-D01-2015 fell within a range of possible acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of the facts and the law, and therefore dismissed the application.

Jessica Ernst v Alberta Energy Regulator (2015 CanLII 23001)

Download ReportLeave to Appeal The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) granted Jessica Ernst leave to appeal the judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) in Ernst v Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2014 ABCA 285. In the decision on which the SCC has...