Bue v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd.

Bue v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd.

The Tribunal was correct that s.97 requires separate assessment of the market value of the lands taken (an easement) distinct from damages for operation; the appropriate test for market value follows the Alberta Court of Appeal approach (seek reliable comparable sales or patterns of dealings; only use en bloc per acre method when reliable comparables are unavailable), but the Committee made reviewable errors applying that Test to the Strathcona, Lamont and Edson awards and those determinations must be redetermined; s.98 does not authorize NOVA-style land rent—periodic payments are a payment-option for an award already determined; the Committee misinterpreted the statutory phrase “amount...

Citation
2006 FC 713
Parties
Appellants; Respondents on Cross Appeal: Byron Bue; Raymond Bue; Bev Collins Holdings Ltd.; Brian Fast; Teresa Fast; Scott Gabert; Tricia Gabert; Raymond Gilkyson; Vicki Gilkyson; Stirling Hanson; Laura Hanson; Mario Marouelli; Jamie Marouelli; Lloyd Olley; Katherine Olley; Kane Piper; Frank Thederahn; Irma Thederahn; Gwen Smith; Dale Smith; Respondent; Appellant on Cross Appeal: Alliance Pipeline Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Arbitration Decisions Under the National Energy Board Act (statutory Appeals Under S.101 Treated as Judicial Review) / Reasons for Order and Remittal (decision on Consolidated Appeals and Cross Appeals)
Outcome
Court set aside parts of the Committee's decisions and remitted specified matters to a differently constituted arbitration committee for redetermination; cross-appeals dismissed; costs on these Federal Court Appeals awarded to the Landowner appellants.
Legal Topics
Compensation for Takings, Market Value Determination, Periodic Payments/land Rent, Standard of Review, Costs Awards, Document Production, Jurisdictional Scope of Arbitration
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Energy Regulation Property/expropriation Law Arbitration Law Civil Procedure Compensation for Takings Market Value Determination Periodic Payments/land Rent +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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Byron Bue; Raymond Bue; Bev Collins Holdings Ltd.; Brian Fast; Teresa Fast; Scott Gabert; Tricia Gabert; Raymond Gilkyson; Vicki Gilkyson; Stirling Hanson; Laura Hanson; Mario Marouelli; Jamie Marouelli; Lloyd Olley; Katherine Olley; Kane Piper; Frank Thederahn; Irma Thederahn; Gwen Smith; Dale Smith

Appellants; Respondents on Cross Appeal

Alliance Pipeline Ltd.

Respondent; Appellant on Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Arbitration Decisions Under the National Energy Board Act (statutory Appeals Under S.101 Treated as Judicial Review) / Reasons for Order and Remittal (decision on Consolidated Appeals and Cross Appeals)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 proper interpretation of s.97(1) re scope of compensation (market value v global award)
  2. 2 appropriate test for market value and role of comparables
  3. 3 whether periodic payments under s.98 permit ‘land rent’ or NOVA-style scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was correct that s.97 requires separate assessment of the market value of the lands taken (an easement) distinct from damages for operation; the appropriate test for market value follows the Alberta Court of Appeal approach (seek reliable comparable sales or patterns of dealings; only use en bloc per acre method when reliable comparables are unavailable), but the Committee made reviewable errors applying that Test to the Strathcona, Lamont and Edson awards and those determinations must be redetermined; s.98 does not authorize NOVA-style land rent—periodic payments are a payment-option for an award already determined; the Committee misinterpreted the statutory phrase “amount...

Court Disposition

Court set aside parts of the Committee's decisions and remitted specified matters to a differently constituted arbitration committee for redetermination; cross-appeals dismissed; costs on these Federal Court Appeals awarded to the Landowner appellants.

Orders

  • Set aside Committee's decision of October 21, 2004 with respect to each Appeal and refer costs back to a differently constituted arbitration committee for redetermination.
  • Set aside Committee's decision of September 5, 2003 with respect to the following appeals and refer back to a differently constituted arbitration committee for redetermination: Scott and Tricia Gabert (T-2397-03); Mario and Jamie Marouelli (T-2400-03); Frank and Irma Thederahn (T-2403-03); Bev Collins Holdings Ltd....