Canada Case Law

Annapolis Royal (Town) v. Annapolis (Municipality)

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Board did not breach procedural fairness because the compliance filing contained no new evidence but only reconfigured existing data which the Town had ample opportunity to contest at the merits hearing, and the Board acted within its statutory jurisdiction under s.87 of the Public Utilities Act to set rates and treat the Town as a wholesale customer despite the 1998 Agreement.

Source excerpt

• Procedural fairness
• Rate setting
• Jurisdiction of regulator
• Contractual preemption
• Evidence admissibility
• Classification as wholesale customer

Read case analysis

Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court held the Ontario Energy Board was not required to apply a no-hindsight prudence test and could disallow $145 million in labour compensation costs.

• Prudence test
• Rate‑setting
• Tribunal standing on appeal
• Bootstrapping
• Collective agreements
• Standard of review (reasonableness)

Read case analysis

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission)

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court upheld Alberta’s utility regulator’s decision to limit recoverable pension COLA costs, holding the statute did not require a no-hindsight prudence test.

• Rate‑setting
• Prudence
• Cost of living adjustment (cola)
• Standard of review
• Forecast vs committed costs
• Rate-setting

Read case analysis

Glykis v. Hydro-Québec

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

La Cour suprême décide que Hydro-Québec pouvait interrompre le service à un autre point de livraison lié au client en défaut, malgré l’absence d’arriérés à cette adresse.

• Interruption of utility service
• Statutory and regulatory interpretation
• Bylaw enforcement
• Civil code correlative obligations
• Legislative history
• Public-utilities

Read case analysis

Antigonish (County) v. Antigonish (Town)

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Court held the Board did not err in law or exceed its jurisdiction: the Board's selection of the required fire flows method with a discount was a discretionary, evidence-supported allocation method and the Board reasonably declined to order retroactive application for practical and discretionary reasons; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Allocation of fire protection charge
• Rate setting
• Retroactivity of administrative decisions
• Standard of review
• Jurisdiction

Read case analysis

Born with Three Thumbs v. Middleton (Town) Water Utillity

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Board exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing an order requiring reconnection of service without first providing the Utility with notice and an opportunity to be heard as required by the Public Utilities Act; procedural rules cannot override statutory requirements for a hearing, therefore the July 7, 2000 order was set aside.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Right to a hearing
• Reconnection of utility service
• Application of procedural rules

Read case analysis

Kenora (Town) Hydro Electric Commission v. Vacationland Dairy Co-operative Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada considered whether equitable estoppel barred a utility’s recovery of underbilled electricity charges caused by its own billing error.

• Quantum meruit
• Equitable estoppel
• Underbilling
• Rate non-discrimination
• Regulatory duty of utilities
• Power corporation act s.99

Read case analysis

Northwestern Utilities Ltd. and al. v. Edmonton

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada held that Alberta utility rates are prospective, that s. 31 concerns lost revenue from delay, and that the Board gave inadequate reasons.

• Interim rates
• Rate-setting methodology
• Retroactive recovery
• Jurisdictional limits
• Duty to give reasons
• Appealability of factual findings

Read case analysis

Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. Public Utilities Board (Alberta) et al.

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Dome Petroleum’s appeal, upholding the Alberta board’s allocation order affecting propane removal permits and finding no procedural error.

• Permits to remove propane
• Jurisdiction of regulatory boards
• Allocation of gas liquids
• Administrative procedure compliance
• Interaction between provincial energy regulators
• Public-utilities

Read case analysis

Amos v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada held the power commission liable for injuries to a child shocked by high-voltage lines concealed by a poplar tree.

• Duty of care
• Foreseeability
• Standard of care
• Maintenance of power lines
• Children and premises liability
• Negligence

Read case analysis