Canada Case Law

Port Hawkesbury Paper LP v. Nova Scotia (Energy Board)

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Court held the Energy Board correctly interpreted the 2024 Term Sheet as effecting a refund that extinguished the pre-December 1, 2024 FAM balance and replaced it with a new federally guaranteed amortizing debt payable over 2024–2052 to the same above-the-line customer class; the Board did not err in law in its ratemaking analysis because the restructuring better matched costs and benefits, did not effect retroactive ratemaking, and PH Paper remains protected by its below-the-line tariff unless it elects service under a tariff that includes Maritime Link costs

Source excerpt

• Rate setting
• Inter-class equity
• Retroactive ratemaking
• Contract interpretation
• Federal loan guarantee
• Fuel adjustment mechanism

Read case analysis

Powell River Energy Inc. v. British Columbia (Utilities Commission)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

On a correct construction of s.1(1) of the UCA, a corporate parent supplying electricity to its wholly owned subsidiaries is supply to a separate legal person and therefore does not fall within the self-supply exclusion in s.1(1)(d); the Panel's ultimate conclusion that PREI is a public utility was correct and the post-decision corporate reorganization did not meet the Palmer test for fresh evidence.

Source excerpt

• Definition of public utility
• Self-supply exclusion
• Corporate separateness
• Jurisdictional scope
• Fresh evidence (palmer)

Read case analysis

Enhance Energy Inc. v. Canada

Enhance Energy Inc. v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court held that ECCC’s interpretation of the Clean Fuel Regulations was unreasonable and set it aside, while remitting the credit-granting question to ECCC.

• Procedural fairness
• Legitimate expectation
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Statutory interpretation (text, context, purpose)
• Remedies (remittal and orders)
• Administrative-law

Read case analysis

1797472 Ontario Inc. v. Independent Electricity System Operator

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge: s.2.1(b) requires IESO consent only for material changes to features or specifications expressly outlined in the Application or the FIT Contract Cover Page or changes to a Facility's status as a Registered Facility; DC capacity and DC/AC ratio were not so outlined and thus did not require prior consent, and the Potentia suppliers' panel optimizations did not constitute material changes to Metering Plans under s.2.2(d); appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Contract interpretation
• Standard-form contracts
• Feed-in-tariff program
• Consent provisions
• Metering plans
• Capacity definitions

Read case analysis

National Steel Car Limited v. Independent Electricity System Operator

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge: the FIT Program component of the Global Adjustment is a valid regulatory charge within provincial power over electricity, its pith and substance concerned procurement and regulation of renewable energy (with environmental, planning and Indigenous/community participation objectives reasonably related to the regulatory scheme), the appellant failed to show colourability or that the levy was a tax, the application judge’s reasons were sufficient, evidentiary rulings were proper and two appellant experts displayed entrenched bias; appeal dismiss…

Source excerpt

• Colourability
• Regulatory charge vs tax
• Feed-in-tariff (fit) programs
• Global adjustment
• Pith and substance
• Evidentiary sufficiency

Read case analysis

All Communications Network of Canada v. Planet Energy Corp.,

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the application judge correctly applied the narrow standard for setting aside arbitral awards, Planet failed to prove it was unable to present its case or that the arbitrator’s conduct offended basic notions of justice, and the arbitrator reasonably interpreted the ECPA and the Agreement; therefore the arbitral award was upheld and enforced.

Source excerpt

• Enforcement of arbitral award
• Setting aside arbitral award
• Procedural fairness
• Public policy
• Contract interpretation
• Regulatory compliance (ecpa)

Read case analysis

British Columbia (Water Sustainability Act) v. Harrison Hydro Project Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed judicial review and upheld the Board’s refusal to allow retroactive water-rental reassessments for 2011 and 2012.

• Retroactivity
• Statutory interpretation
• Water rental fees
• Administrative tribunals
• Judicial review
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

Swist v. MEG Energy Corp.

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court held MEG’s Christina Lake operations did not infringe the 746 Patent, and that claims 1 to 8 were invalid for anticipation and inutility.

• Infringement
• Anticipation
• Obviousness
• Utility (inutility)
• Claim construction
• Steam assisted gravity drainage (sagd)

Read case analysis

Grasshopper Solar Corporation v. Independent Electricity System Operator

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

A stay was granted because the applicants satisfied the low threshold that their leave applications raise serious questions, demonstrated they would suffer irreparable human and commercial harm if FIT payments ceased, and the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo; the stay is limited to the period until the Supreme Court of Canada determines the applications for leave.

Source excerpt

• Contract interpretation
• Stay of proceedings
• Estoppel
• Forbearance agreement
• Security for payments
• Leave to appeal to supreme court

Read case analysis

Coquitlam (City) v. British Columbia Utilities Commission

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted in a dispute over whether the BCUC could authorize a decommissioned pipeline to remain in place on municipal land and set removal-cost terms.

• Decommissioning
• Jurisdiction of regulatory tribunal
• Abandonment in place
• Municipal infrastructure
• Cost allocation
• Leave to appeal

Read case analysis