Alminex Limited et al. v. Canadian Delhi Oil Limited

Alminex Limited et al. v. Canadian Delhi Oil Limited

The Appellate Division correctly construed the unitization agreement to admit the tract without applying the contractual penalty factor, awarding full participation based on a porosity‑footage of 107; the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the defendants' appeal and affirmed that outcome.

Citation
[1968] SCR 775
Parties
Appellants (defendants): Alminex Limited et al.; Respondent (plaintiff): Canadian Delhi Oil Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 June 1968
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Contract (unitization Agreement) / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal From Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Unitization Agreement, Interpretation of Contract, Specific Performance, Damages, Participation Factor, Penalty Factor, Regulatory Allowance by Oil and Gas Conservation Board
Source Language
English
Contract Oil and Gas Property Unitization Agreement Interpretation of Contract Specific Performance Damages Participation Factor +2 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alminex Limited et al.

Appellants (defendants)

Canadian Delhi Oil Limited

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Contract (unitization Agreement) / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal From Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tract should be admitted to the unit as of March 1, 1964 without application of a penalty factor
  2. 2 Whether the penalty applied by the Oil and Gas Conservation Board should reduce contractual participation
  3. 3 Proper method for fixing participation (porosity‑footage) and measure of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellate Division correctly construed the unitization agreement to admit the tract without applying the contractual penalty factor, awarding full participation based on a porosity‑footage of 107; the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the defendants' appeal and affirmed that outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division (1967) varying the trial judgment to permit full unpenalized participation with a tract porosity‑footage of 107 and remitting assessment of additional sums to the Trial Division is affirmed.