Balisky v. Goodale

Balisky v. Goodale

The Minister did not err: the 30m 'controlled area' under s.112 is a statutory public safety restriction imposed by Parliament, not an acquisition or activity directly attributable to the pipeline company; because s.84 confines arbitration to damage 'directly related' to acquisition, construction, inspection, maintenance or repair, the negotiation and arbitration procedures do not apply to compensation claims for the controlled area, and the application for judicial review is dismissed.

Citation
2002 FCT 976
Parties
Applicants: TERRY BALISKY ET AL.; Respondent (minister): THE HONOURABLE RALPH GOODALE, MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES; Respondent (pipeline Company): ALLIANCE PIPELINE LTD.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Decision on Application (federal Court, Trial Division)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Entry Orders, Arbitration Committees, Controlled Area (s112), Compensation for Acquisition of Lands, Interpretation of 'directly' in S84
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Energy Regulation Property Law Statutory Interpretation Right of Entry Orders Arbitration Committees Controlled Area (s112) Compensation for Acquisition of Lands +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TERRY BALISKY ET AL.

Applicants

THE HONOURABLE RALPH GOODALE, MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Respondent (minister)

ALLIANCE PIPELINE LTD.

Respondent (pipeline Company)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Decision on Application (federal Court, Trial Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister erred by restricting Arbitration Committees from considering compensation for the 30m 'controlled area' under s.112 of the NEB Act
  2. 2 Whether compensation for the controlled area falls within the negotiation and arbitration provisions of Part V (s.84)
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of the adverb 'directly' in s.84 of the NEB Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister did not err: the 30m 'controlled area' under s.112 is a statutory public safety restriction imposed by Parliament, not an acquisition or activity directly attributable to the pipeline company; because s.84 confines arbitration to damage 'directly related' to acquisition, construction, inspection, maintenance or repair, the negotiation and arbitration procedures do not apply to compensation claims for the controlled area, and the application for judicial review is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • The application for judicial review is dismissed.