Kearl Oil Sands Project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 14 stare decisis does not apply to the Commission's decisions and that different outcomes are possible because every panel bases its decision on the record before it. 47 AG is also aware that it has the burden of proof under the provisions of the Gas Utilities Act to show that any requested relief is just and reasonable. AG has full control over what evidence it chooses to provide throughout the process to support its application and its burden of proof. The review panel notes that AG raised this concept of legitimate expectation throughout its R&V Application. Rather than reiterate this finding throughout this decision, the Commission confirms that this finding applies in each instance where AG has raised this issue. 48 Notwithstanding its finding on AG's submissions regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation, with respect to Customer Information System enhancements, the review panel considers it is unclear whether the hearing panel considered AG's response to AUC-AG-43(b) in coming to its conclusion that "paragraph 129 of the application does not justify the requested capital expenditure for this project." Given that AG's response to AUC-AG-43(b) could be relevant to the matter at issue, the review panel considers that this raises an error of law and a substantial doubt has been raised as to the correctness of the decision. Therefore, the review panel grants a review of the decision to deny AG's Customer Information System enhancement forecast costs. 4.2 Head Office Advertising Costs 4.2.1 Views of the parties 49 With respect to head office advertising costs, AG submitted that in Decision 2011-134, ATCO Electric received approval for all of its head office costs. AG's forecasts were based on the identical total head office cost forecast for ATCO Electric, however, in Decision 2011-450, the hearing panel denied AG its head office advertising costs without any explanation of the different circumstances between AG and ATCO Electric. 4.2.2 Decision 2011-450 regarding Head Office Advertising Costs 50 In Decision 2011-450 the hearing panel stated: The Commission relies on the approval of the corporate cost allocation methodology in Decision 2010-447 for 2011. The Commission has reviewed the corporate costs in Table 42, Administrative expense and notes that actual costs for 2008, 2009 and 2010 exceeded forecasts. However, for 2008 an explanation of the variance is provided. The Commission accepts AG's explanation and considers that the increase, which was with respect to HRX, would be a recurring cost. A comparison of actual 2008 costs to forecast 2011 costs is an increase of 10.5 per cent over a three-year period. The Commission considers an increase of approximately 3.5 per cent per year to be reasonable. However, the Commission agrees that the $73,000 for 2011 and $75,000 for 2012 of allocated corporate advertising, as noted above by the UCA, should not have been included in the corporate costs and directs that this amount should be removed. The Commission is satisfied that except as noted above for advertising, AG's forecast corporate office costs for 2011 are reasonable. The Commission notes that the same costs formed part of the 2011 revenue requirement for ATCO Electric in Decision 2011-134. 29
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Big Loop Cattle Co. Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2010 ABCA 328 Between: Between: Date: 20101102 Docket: 1001-0169-AC 1001-0171-AC 1001-0172-AC Registry: Calgary Docket: 1001-0169-AC Big Loop Cattle Co. Ltd., E.P. Ranch Limited, High Lonesome Ranch Limited, Pekisko Creek Ranch & Cattle Co. Ltd., Alec C. Burke and Municipal District of Ranchland No. 66 The Pekisko Group Applicants (Appellants on Appeal) - and - The Energy Resources Conservation Board and Suncor Energy Inc. (formerly Petro-Canada) Royal Adderson and Bar Ad Ranches Ltd. - and - Respondents (Respondents on Appeal) Docket: 1001-0171-AC Applicants (Appellants on Appeal) The Energy Resources Conservation Board and Suncor Energy Inc. (formerly Petro-Canada <strong>Oil</strong> & Gas Ltd.) Respondents (Respondents on Appeal)
Page 1 and 2: IN THE MATTER OF THE ENERGY RESOURC
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents I. Introduction .
Page 5 and 6: 6.4 Nothing in this article 6 limit
Page 7 and 8: provincial distribution of powers u
Page 9 and 10: exclude from the Commission's juris
Page 11 and 12: 25. The Legislature has expressly e
Page 13 and 14: and its duty to consult on aborigin
Page 15 and 16: Crown. 35 Regardless of whether the
Page 17 and 18: the courts, lack constitutional dis
Page 19 and 20: efore decision-making bodies set up
Page 21 and 22: 59. In support of its decision in P
Page 23 and 24: the Crown, and is still underway, a
Page 25 and 26: shows that this Panel and the Commi
Page 27 and 28: V. Judicial Comity and Stare Decisi
Page 29: argument, and certainly not since t
Page 32 and 33: Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. British Co
Page 34 and 35: Case Name: ATCO Gas (a Division of
Page 38 and 39: Between: Docket: 1001-0172-AC Keith
Page 40 and 41: Case Name: Carrier Sekani Tribal Co
Page 42 and 43: HELD: Appeal allowed and matter rem
Page 44 and 45: Crown in its dealings with Aborigin
Page 46 and 47: [Emphasis added.] absence of legal
Page 48 and 49: Page 23 adversely affect it: see Ha
Page 50 and 51: Indexed as: Bell v. Canada (Canadia
Page 52 and 53: Page 3 enabling statute, provide an
Page 54 and 55: the separation of powers under the
Page 56 and 57: gatekeeper to the tribunal process
Page 58 and 59: Tribunals, vol. 2. Toronto: Carswel
Page 60 and 61: were laid down by this Court in Dou
Page 62 and 63: legislature is to decide upon and e
Page 64 and 65: of the Canadian people. 16 The link
Page 66 and 67: democracy. As with the separation o
Page 68 and 69: 1985, c. H-6. In particular, is it
Page 70 and 71: Marceau J.A. Page 21 must show that
Page 72 and 73: Page 23 it clear that no administra
Page 74 and 75: appear in person or through counsel
Page 76 and 77: to Charter scrutiny. The former rep
Page 78 and 79: complaint referred to it by the Com
Page 80 and 81: Page 31 All law and law-makers that
Page 82 and 83: administrative arm of government as
Page 84 and 85: Page 35 whether that legislation wa
Page 86 and 87:
discriminatory practices". Page 37
Page 88 and 89:
Human Rights Act and hence inoperat
Page 90:
cp/d/hbb/DRS/DRS Page 41
Page 93 and 94:
Page 2 Appeal by the Dene Tha' Firs
Page 95 and 96:
different from what the Board was t
Page 97 and 98:
Appeal From: Supreme Court of Canad
Page 99 and 100:
ights and titles. If consultation i
Page 101 and 102:
Gregory J. McDade, Q.C., and John R
Page 103 and 104:
can provide a desired result. The s
Page 105 and 106:
Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Lim
Page 107 and 108:
Application for an Oil Sands Mine a
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
KEARL OIL SANDS PROJECT JOINT REVIE
Page 117 and 118:
Case Name: Kelly v. Alberta (Energy
Page 119 and 120:
(EUB Decision 2007-061, p. 21) b) W
Page 121 and 122:
Case Name: Kwikwetlem First Nation
Page 123 and 124:
Commission had jurisdiction and cap
Page 125 and 126:
8 As a quasi-judicial tribunal with
Page 127 and 128:
Utilities Commission Act 45.(1) Exc
Page 129 and 130:
101.(1) An appeal lies from a decis
Page 131 and 132:
have their challenge to the adequac
Page 136 and 137:
Indexed as: Nova Scotia (Workers' C
Page 138 and 139:
the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Page 140 and 141:
Page 5 applicable benefits to a fou
Page 142 and 143:
Provincial Court of Prince Edward I
Page 144 and 145:
[page528] V. Analysis A. Jurisdicti
Page 146 and 147:
Indexed as: Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v
Page 148 and 149:
independence implicated here. There
Page 150 and 151:
independence required of a particul
Page 152 and 153:
the panel that it was his position
Page 154 and 155:
Introduction PITFIELD J.:-- 6. Ther
Page 156 and 157:
Appeal From: Indexed as: Paul v. Br
Page 158 and 159:
doctrine of incidental effects, it
Page 160 and 161:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Free
Page 162 and 163:
including its content and scope, or
Page 164 and 165:
any organ created by the Province o
Page 166 and 167:
s. 35 rights. This Court's decision
Page 168 and 169:
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest,
Page 170 and 171:
Page 4 2 S.C.R. 335; Lac Minerals L
Page 172 and 173:
Page 19 36 It is for this reason th
Page 174 and 175:
Catchwords: Constitutional law -- C
Page 176 and 177:
jurisprudence calls for a new appro
Page 178 and 179:
779; Pinet v. St. Thomas Psychiatri
Page 180 and 181:
[para. 78] In her view, both the Co
Page 182 and 183:
agreement violates the Charter and
Page 184 and 185:
Appeal From: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 483 [2
Page 186 and 187:
or analogous grounds. Given the lan
Page 188 and 189:
1 of the Charter. Section 25 is a n
Page 190 and 191:
Canada. Fisheries and Oceans. An Ev
Page 192 and 193:
Morin, Alexandre. Le droit à l'ég
Page 194 and 195:
Richard James Fyfe, for the interve
Page 196 and 197:
Indexed as: Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v.
Page 198 and 199:
consultation under s. 35 of the Con
Page 200 and 201:
honour of Crown, BC Hydro's represe
Page 202 and 203:
[page657] Peter W. Hutchins and Dav
Page 204 and 205:
[page677] or the management of the
Page 206 and 207:
consider the issue of consultation.
Page 208 and 209:
Case Name: Slaight Communications I
Page 210 and 211:
Page 3 The word "like" in the Engli
Page 212 and 213:
Page 5 tutes a prima facie violatio
Page 214 and 215:
Page 27 85 Appellant further argued
Page 216 and 217:
2004 BCSC 1320, 34 B.C.L.R. (4th) 2
Page 218 and 219:
2004 BCSC 1320, 34 B.C.L.R. (4th) 2
Page 220 and 221:
Province of Alberta ADMINISTRATIVE
Page 222 and 223:
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND JURIS
Page 224 and 225:
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND RSA 2
Page 226 and 227:
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND RSA 2
Page 228:
Rights and rree· doms in Canada AP
Page 232 and 233:
Province of Alberta ADMINISTRATIVE
Page 234 and 235:
(Consolidated up to 254/2007) ALBER
Page 236 and 237:
Schedule 1 DESIGNATION OF CONSTITUT
Page 238 and 239:
Province of Alberta ENERGY RESOURCE
Page 240 and 241:
ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION ACT C
Page 242 and 243:
RSA 2000 Section 2 Chapter E-10 ENE
Page 244 and 245:
RSA 2000 Section 14 Chapter E-10 EN
Page 246 and 247:
Province of Alberta OIL SANDS CONSE
Page 248 and 249:
OIL SANDS CONSERVATION ACT Chapter
Page 250 and 251:
Section 5 OIL SANDS CONSERVATION AC
Page 252 and 253:
354 Bill 2 Alberta Centennial Medal
Page 254 and 255:
356 boards our officials met with b
Page 258 and 259:
) JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
Page 260:
12:4400 Fettering of Judgment 12:44
Page 267:
6.3 ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS admini
show all

Kearl Oil Sands Project

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?