Link to Decision SummarizedRegulatory 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...
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.
Request for Regulatory Appeal by Aqua Terra Water Management Inc. (AER Request for Regulatory Appeal No.: 1916371)
Link to decision summarizedRequest for Regulatory Appeal - Application Closure - Appealable Decision - Dismissed In this decision, the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) considered Aqua Terra Water Management Inc. (“Aqua Terra”)’s request under section 38 of the...
Request for Regulatory Appeal by Mike Partsch – Tidewater Midstream and Infrastructure Ltd. (AER Request for Regulatory Appeal No.: 1919481)
The AER found that Mr. Partsch did not show that he may be directly and adversely affected by the Amending Approval and therefore was not an “eligible person” under section 36(b)(ii) of the REDA. Accordingly, the AER dismissed the request for regulatory appeal.
Request for Regulatory Appeal by Michael Judd of Pipeline Licence Issued to Shell Canada Corporation (AER Regulatory Appeal No.: 1916723)
The AER found that Mr. Judd was an eligible person as required by the test set out in section 38(1) of the REDA in respect of the decision to issue the Pipeline Licence. Therefore, the AER granted the request for regulatory appeal.
Request for Regulatory Appeal by Michael Judd of Resume Drilling Licence Issued to Shell Canada Corporation (AER Regulatory Appeal No.: 1916724)
The AER found that Mr. Judd was not an eligible person as required by the test set out in section 38(1) of REDA. Therefore, the AER dismissed the request for a regulatory appeal of the Resume Drilling Licence.
Request for Regulatory Appeal by Martin Hillmer – Shell Canada Limited (AER Regulatory Appeal No.: 1913546)
The AER concluded that the tests for appealable decision and eligible person were met in this case. The AER further determined there was no justification for dismissing the regulatory appeal request under section 39(4) of REDA.
Request for Regulatory Appeal by Harold Wynne, Point Loma Resources Ltd., (AER Request for Regulatory Appeal No. 1916880)
The AER found that Mr. Wynne did not establish that he was or may be directly and adversely affected by the decision. Therefore, the AER held that Mr. Wynne was not an ‘eligible person’ under REDA section 36(b) and, as a result, denied the request for regulatory appeal.
Remington v. Enmax, 2019 ABCA 69
The ABCA granted the appeal of the ABQB’s direction that Enmax withdraw the SRB Compensation Application. The appeal of the dismissal of Enmax’s application for a stay of the Action was dismissed.
Request for Regulatory Appeal by Elizabeth Métis Settlement (AER Regulatory Appeal Nos: 1913250 and 1913252)
In this decision, the AER considered the Elizabeth Métis Settlement (“EMS”)’s request for a regulatory appeal of the AER’s decisions to issue Approval Nos.: 73534-01-02 under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (“EPEA”) (the “EPEA Approval”) and 8558MM under the Oil Sands Conservation Act (“OSCA”) (the “OSCA Approval) (collectively, the “Approvals”) to Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. (“Imperial”). The AER granted the request for regulatory appeal, finding that EMS was an eligible person under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”).
AER Decision Dismissing Request for Regulatory Appeal by O’Chiese First Nation of Well Licences Issued to Shell Canada Limited (Regulatory Appeal No. 1831586)
The AER denied the request for regulatory appeal, based on finding that OCFN was not directly and adversely affected by the AER’s decisions to issue the Well Licences and, therefore, not an “eligible person” as defined by section 36(b)(ii) of REDA.
Request for Regulatory Appeal by Joslyn Energy Development IncorporateD (AER Decision)
In this decision, the AER considered Joslyn Energy Development Incorporated’s (“JEDI”) request for a regulatory appeal of an AER decision approving Suncor’s requested amendments to its commercial scheme operating approval for its Millennium oil sands mine (the “Amending Approval”).
The AER dismissed JEDI’s request for regulatory appeal, based on its determination that JEDI was not an “eligible person” under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) and therefore not eligible to request a regulatory appeal.
AER Decision Dismissing Request for Regulatory Appeal by R.A. Brown of Licence Issued to Whitecap Resources Inc. (Appeal No.: 1903068)
In this decision, the AER considered R.A. Brown’s (“Mr. Brown”) request for regulatory appeal of the AER’s decision to issue Whitecap Resources Inc. (“Whitecap”) Well Licence No. 04891138 (the “Decision”).
The AER found that Mr. Brown was not an eligible person and dismissed his request for regulatory appeal of the Decision.
Request for Regulatory Appeal by Longshore Resources Ltd.
In this decision, the AER considered Longshore Resources Ltd.’s (“Longshore”) request for a regulatory appeal of the AER’s decision to refuse to issue Longshore a formal disposition (the “Decision”) for a Licence of Occupation (“LOC”).
Longshore’s request for regulatory appeal was opposed by the AER Oil and Gas Northwest staff (“OGNW”).
The AER granted Longshore’s request for a regulatory appeal.
Husky Oil Operations Limited and Gibson Energy Inc. – Regulatory Appeals of an Environmental Protection Order Issued (AER Decision 2018 ABAER 007)
The AER dismissed the requests for regulatory appeal filed by Husky and Gibson pursuant to section 39(4) of Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”).
The AER panel found that the regulatory appeals of both Husky and Gibson were moot because the EPO was cancelled. There was no longer an appealable decision before the panel and no remedies under REDA that authorized the panel to grant these regulatory appeals. The AER stated that the proper venue for any dispute about allocation of financial liability for remediation costs is the civil court system, not the regulatory appeal process under REDA.
Request for Regulatory Appeal by Fort McKay First Nation of AER Decision 20171218A Approving Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Tailings Management Plan (Regulatory Appeal No. 1905407)
In this decision, the AER considered Fort McKay First Nation’s (“FMFN”) request under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for a regulatory appeal of the AER’s decision approving CNRL’s tailings management plan (“TMP”) application for the Horizon Oil Sands Processing Plant and Mine (the “Horizon Mine”) under its Oil Sands Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c. O-7 (“OSCA”) Commercial Scheme Approval No. 9752E (the “Horizon Approval”). The Decision was an amendment to the existing Horizon Approval (the “Decision”).
Bonterra Energy Corp. – Request for Regulatory Appeal and Stay of AER Decision to Suspend Licence Nos. 0486916, 0486919, 048717
In this decision, the AER considered Bonterra Energy Corp.’s (“Bonterra”) request under section 39(2) of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for a stay of a January 5, 2018, AER Decision to Suspend Licence Nos. 0486916, 0486919, 048717 (the “Decision”). That Decision was the subject of the above-noted request for regulatory appeal.
AER Decision Dismissing Request for Regulatory Appeal by Ken Cowles – Jupiter Resources Inc. Well Licences (Appeal No. 1849984)
In this decision, the AER considered Mr. Cowles’ requests under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for regulatory appeals of the AER’s decisions to approve certain well licences (the “Licences”) issued to Jupiter Resources Inc. (“Jupiter”). The Licences were issued in December 2015, allowing Jupiter to drill and produce fourteen natural gas wells.
The AER determined that: (1) Mr. Cowles did not file a statement of concern in relation to the applications for which the Licences were issued; and (2) in any case, the record does not indicate that Mr. Cowles was directly and adversely affected by the AER’s decisions to issue the Licences.
The AER therefore dismissed the requests for regulatory appeals.
Request for Regulatory Appeal by Gordon Knull – Apache Canada Ltd. (AER Appeal No.: 1891163)
The AER determined that a hearing into the Regulatory Appeal would be held as the legislative tests were met.
Request for Regulatory Appeal and Suspension by Ember Resources Inc. – Encana Corporation and Manitok Energy Inc. (AER Appeal No.: 1885827)
The AER found that Ember is not directly and adversely affected by the decision to transfer the pipeline licences to Manitok. Therefore, the request for regulatory appeal was dismissed.
West Isle Energy Inc. – Request for Regulatory Appeal, Reconsideration and Stay of Closure and Abandonment Order (AER Request for Regulatory Appeal No. 1887883)
The AER granted West Isle’s request to extend the time for filing a request for a regulatory appeal of the Order. The AER granted West Isle’s request for a regulatory appeal, finding that West Isle was an eligible person as defined by the Responsible Energy Development Act.
Canadian Natural Resources Limited – Request for Regulatory Appeal by Mike-Ro Farms Ltd.
The AER found that MRF was not directly and adversely affected by issuance of the Licence and therefore MRF was not eligible to request a regulatory appeal.
Tidewater Midstream and Infrastructure Ltd. Approvals – Regulatory Appeal Request by Partsch
The AER found that the Partschs failed to demonstrate that they were or might be directly and adversely affected by the Approvals. The AER therefore concluded that the Partschs were not an eligible person for the purposes of section 38(1) of REDA and dismissed the request for a regulatory appeal.
Tidewater Midstream and Infrastructure Ltd. Approvals – Regulatory Appeal Request by Sorenson
The AER held that the Sorensons had not demonstrated that they may be directly and adversely impacted by the Approvals and were therefore not an “eligible person” under REDA section 38.
Ernst & Young Inc. – Court-appointed Receiver of Spyglass Resources Corp. – Regulatory Appeal Request
The AER found that E&Y was not an “eligible person” under REDA section 36(b)(ii) and therefore not eligible to request a regulatory appeal. The AER therefore dismissed E&Y’s regulatory appeal request.
Ernst & Young Inc. – Court-appointed Receiver of Spyglass Resources Corp. – Regulatory Appeal Request
The AER found that E&Y was not an “eligible person” under REDA section 36(b)(ii) and therefore not eligible to request a regulatory appeal. The AER therefore dismissed E&Y’s regulatory appeal request.
InterPipeline Ltd. – Request for Regulatory Appeal (AER Regulatory Appeal No. 1884415)
The AER determined that a hearing into the regulatory appeal requested by InterPipeline Ltd. (“InterPipeline”) would be held.
Request for Regulatory Appeal by Braun Land Owners (AER Appeal No. 1869031)
The AER found that the Landowners had not established that they may be directly and adversely impacted by the AER Decision issuing the Approval. The AER held that the Landowners are not an “eligible person” under REDA section 38 and therefore dismissed the appeal request pursuant to REDA section 39(4).
Decision Dismissing J. Winchester’s Request for Regulatory Appeal of Petrus Resources Corp. Licences
The AER denied the request for regulatory appeal on the grounds that Mr. Winchester was not an “eligible person” for the purposes of requesting a regulatory appeal under REDA.
Request for Regulatory Stay of Petrus Resources Corp. Licences (AER Appeal No. 1872471 & 1872809)
On December 16, 2016, the AER issued two decisions denying separate requests from John Winchester and Wayne Greene, requesting the AER stay certain licences issued to Petrus Resources Corp. (“Petrus”).
Request for Regulatory Stay of Petrus Resources Corp. Licences (AER Appeal No. 1872471 & 1872809)
On December 16, 2016, the AER issued two decisions denying separate requests from John Winchester and Wayne Greene, requesting the AER stay certain licences issued to Petrus Resources Corp. (“Petrus”).
Request for Regulatory Appeal of NEP Canada ULC Licences (AER No. Appeal 1862322)
Request for Regulatory Appeal of Licences – Regulatory Appeal Request DeniedOn December 7, 2016, the AER issued a decision denying Allen Pukanski’s request for a regulatory appeal of certain well licences issued to NEP Canada ULC (“NEP”).Concerns RaisedMr. Pukanski’s...
Request for Regulatory Appeal and Stay of Grizzly Resources Ltd. Licences (AER Appeal No. 1865544)
On October 11, 2016, the AER issued a decision granting Mike Richard’s request, pursuant to section 39 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for a regulatory appeal of certain well and facility licences issued to Grizzly Resources Ltd. (“Grizzly”).
However, the AER denied Mr. Richard’s request for a stay of those licences.
AER Denies Request for Regulatory Appeal by Samson Cree Nations
The AER held that the Samson Cree had not established specific locations where its members might be affected, or specific ways in which they might be affected by the Project.