Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. Public Utilities Board (Alberta) et al.
- Citation
- [1977] 2 SCR 822
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 31 January 1977
- Posture
- Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 31 January 1977
- Posture
- Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Public Utilities Board had statutory authority to impose the allocation plan, could lawfully treat propane produced in a mixed stream as subject to that plan, and complied with s.8 of The Administrative Procedures Act; therefore the Appellate Division's dismissal of the appeal was correct and the appeal to this Court is dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Order of the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division (1976), 2 A.R. 453, is affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
Dome Petroleum Limited
Appellant Counsel: C.D. O'Brien; J.D.B. MacDonaldPublic Utilities Board of the Province of Alberta
Respondent Counsel: W.B. Gill, Q.C.Canadian Superior Oil Ltd.
Respondent Counsel: T. Mayson, Q.C.Amounts and remedies
- Report Page: 822
03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Public Utilities Board had jurisdiction to impose allocation requirements that affected permits to remove propane granted by the Energy Resources Conservation Board
- 02
Whether the Board could lawfully treat propane produced as part of a mixed stream as subject to its allocation scheme
- 03
Whether the Board complied with s.8 of The Administrative Procedures Act (R.S.A. 1970, c. 2)
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant contended the Public Utilities Board lacked jurisdiction to infringe permits granted by the Energy Resources Conservation Board and erred in treating propane produced in a mixed stream as subject to allocation obligations; appellant argued the Board's order was unlawful.
- Respondent
- Respondents maintained the Board lawfully exercised its statutory powers under the Gas Utilities Act to impose an allocation plan, properly accounted for mixed-stream propane production, and complied with procedural requirements of s.8 of The Administrative Procedures Act.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
The Gas Utilities Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 158, s. 27(e)
Regulatory boards may impose allocation obligations on gas utilities within statutory authority
- 02
The Administrative Procedures Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 2, s. 8
Administrative decision-makers must comply with statutory procedural requirements in making orders
- 03
The Gas Resources Preservation Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 157
Provincial statutes govern allocation and preservation of gas resources and may interact with utilities regulation
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Public Utilities Board had statutory authority to impose the allocation plan, could lawfully treat propane produced in a mixed stream as subject to that plan, and complied with s.8 of The Administrative Procedures Act; therefore the Appellate Division's dismissal of the appeal was correct and the appeal to this Court is dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Order of the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division (1976), 2 A.R. 453, is affirmed
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 31 January 1977
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 31 January 1977
Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. Public Utilities Board (Alberta) et al. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1977-01-31 Report [1977] 2 SCR 822 Judges Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; de Grandpré, Louis-Philippe On appeal from Alberta Subjects Public utilities Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. Public Utilities Board (Alberta) et al., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 822 Date: 1977-01-31 Dome Petroleum Limited Appellant; and Public Utilities Board of the Province of Alberta and Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. Respondents. 1977: January 31. Present: Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBERTA, APPELLATE DIVISION Public utilities—Permits to remove propane from Alberta granted to appellant by Energy Resources Conservation Board—Jurisdiction of Public Utilities Board to infringe upon permits—Allocation plan requiring owners of certain gas utilities including appellant to supply propane to Alberta market upon terms imposed by Utilities Board—Board correct as matter of law in taking into account appellant’s production of propane in a mix gathered for removal from Alberta—Compliance by Utilities Board with s. 8 of The Administrative Procedures Act, R.S.A. 1970,c. 2—The Gas Resources
Preservation Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 157—The Gas Utilities Act, R.S.A. 1970,c. 158, s. 27(e). APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division[1], dismissing an appeal by the appellant from an order made by the respondent Board. Appeal dismissed. C.D. O’Brien and J.D.B. MacDonald, for the appellant. W.B. Gill, Q.C., for the Public Utilities Board. T. Mayson, Q.C., for Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by MARTLAND J.—The thorough argument submitted by counsel for the appellant has failed to persuade us that the judgment of the Appellate Division was wrong in law. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitors for the appellant: Jones, Black & Co., Calgary. Solicitors for the respondent, Public Utilities Board of the Province of Alberta: Gill, Cook, Calgary. Solicitors for the respondent, Canadian Superior Oil Ltd.: Milner & Steer, Edmonton. [1] (1976), 2 A.R. 453.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.