Surrey (City) v. Oil and Gas Commission

Surrey (City) v. Oil and Gas Commission

The petition was struck in its entirety as an abuse of process and as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious: individual decision‑makers and FortisBC were improperly included without consent and their inclusion was unnecessary; allegations of bias and many issues were premature because they had not been decided by the Commission and should be raised before the tribunal first; Mr. Paulson's July 20, 2012 approval was a valid prospective s.76(3) order and the City's prior request to hold proceedings in abeyance estopped it from seeking approval for past work.

Citation
2013 BCSC 1864
Parties
Petitioner: City of Surrey; Respondent (tribunal): Oil and Gas Commission; Respondent (former Commissioner): Alex Ferguson; Respondent (commissioner): Paul Jeakins; Respondent (deputy Commissioner/decision Maker): Ken Paulson; Respondent (pipeline Owner): FortisBC Energy Inc.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Judicial Review Procedure Act / Application to Strike Petition Heard; Decision on Motions to Strike and Merits Jurisdictional Issues
Outcome
Petition struck in its entirety; applications to strike granted
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction, Declaratory Relief, Pipeline Crossings (ogaa), Estoppel, Costs
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Natural Justice Jurisdiction +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Surrey

Petitioner

Oil and Gas Commission

Respondent (tribunal)

Alex Ferguson

Respondent (former Commissioner)

Paul Jeakins

Respondent (commissioner)

Ken Paulson

Respondent (deputy Commissioner/decision Maker)

FortisBC Energy Inc.

Respondent (pipeline Owner)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Judicial Review Procedure Act / Application to Strike Petition Heard; Decision on Motions to Strike and Merits Jurisdictional Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Further Amended Petition constitutes an abuse of process and should be struck
  2. 2 Whether individual decision‑makers and third party FortisBC may be properly included as respondents in a JRPA petition without consent
  3. 3 Whether allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias should be heard in the first instance by the Commission or by the court

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was struck in its entirety as an abuse of process and as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious: individual decision‑makers and FortisBC were improperly included without consent and their inclusion was unnecessary; allegations of bias and many issues were premature because they had not been decided by the Commission and should be raised before the tribunal first; Mr. Paulson's July 20, 2012 approval was a valid prospective s.76(3) order and the City's prior request to hold proceedings in abeyance estopped it from seeking approval for past work.

Court Disposition

Petition struck in its entirety; applications to strike granted

Orders

  • Further Amended Petition struck as unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process
  • Names of Alex Ferguson, Paul Jeakins, Ken Paulson and FortisBC Energy Inc. struck from the Petition as improperly joined