Canada: Freehold Lease Terminations: Summary Judgment Efforts Falter

In the April 4, 2013 edition of Energy @ Gowlings,  we reported on two rulings made by judges of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, each of them granting summary judgment against the lessee under a freehold petroleum and natural gas lease.  One of those decisions, dealing with cessations in production, has been overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal.  The other decision has not been overturned, but in a case similar to it, also involving the offset well and default clauses, the chambers judge came to the opposite conclusion and refused summary judgment.  These most recent decisions provide a sobering lesson to mineral owners thinking of summary judgment as a relatively cheap and expeditious way to obtain a final court ruling in freehold lease disputes.

Locke, Stock & Barrel Company Ltd.: No Production and No Working Operations

In P. Burns Resources Limited v. Locke Stock & Barrel Company Limited, 2014 ABQB 13 (January 30, 2014), the Alberta Court of Appeal reversed a decision of Bensler, J. (2013 ABQB 129) in which she had granted a "partial" summary judgment terminating the lease held by Locke Stock & Barrel Company Limited ("LSB"). 

The lease followed a common industry form.  After the primary term, any cessation in the production of leased substances would result in termination of the lease, subject to certain saving provisions.  Under one of these saving provisions, the lease would continue in force during the period of non-production if drilling or working operations were started and prosecuted with no cessation of more than 90 days.  Furthermore, time would not count against LSB in either of two further circumstances:

  1. If drilling or working operations were interrupted as a result of any cause beyond LSB's reasonable control; or
  2. If a well was shut in or suspended or otherwise not produced for any cause whatsoever which was in accordance with good oil field practice.

As the case was heard on a summary judgment application, both the chambers judge (Justice Bensler) and the Court of Appeal only had affidavit evidence (as opposed to oral) before them to help them decide whether these conditions had been satisfied.  As is clear from the Court of Appeal's Reasons, LSB had submitted more complete affidavit evidence than is apparent from a reading of Bensler, J's reasons.

Affidavits had been sworn by LSB's field operator and by an expert retained by LSB, who had given his opinion on what constituted "good oilfield practice" in operating low productivity wells such as the well in question.

The chambers judge had described the work done by the field operator, Ferner, as "minimal and not directed at the production of oil".  She therefore found that his efforts did not qualify as "working operations".  As for the expert witness, Mr. Anderson, she found his opinion on "good oilfield practices" to be "generalized and not directed to the particular operations carried out by Mr. Ferner on the Well".

The Court of Appeal noted that LSB's affidavit evidence described the high concentrations of acetate and wax in the producing zone, the tendency of those substances to plug the pump and the various strategies adopted by LSB to attempt to dislodge the acetate and wax.

Evidence showed that the pump had been pulled and repaired in July 2007. This was not a well that was just shut-in and forgotten.  Ferner, the pumper, was present at the site of the well on almost a daily basis.  He ... contacted experts for advice, followed that advice, shut down and started up the pump for the Well occasionally, poured diesel down the pump, and tapped the pump. (para. 18)

The Court of Appeal quoted at length from Anderson's written opinion about the steps that a prudent operator should take at the low productivity stage of a well, and in cases where the oil is waxy and susceptible to "scaling".  It rejected the lessor's efforts to support the chambers judge's decision on the basis that the expert had not been present at the site.

The fact that Anderson had not been to the site, and did not know exactly what the pumper did at the Well-site, does not mean that his opinion as to proper oil field practices was not highly relevant here. He is entitled to opine on hypothetical facts put to him, and his opinion is not diminished because he does not know if those steps were carried out. (para. 22)

The Court of Appeal emphasized that it was not making a judgment on the final outcome of the trial.  However, it is worth noting that the Court understood that the appropriate strategy for an operator to adopt will depend on the conditions pertaining to the particular well and the type of oil that is being produced.  What is good operating practice will be different from well to well.

Laird v. Sword Energy Inc.: Offset Wells and Default Notices

The default clause in many standard-form P & NG leases contains a potential trap for the lessee. It requires the lessee to do one of two things within 30 days of receipt of a default notice.  The lessee must either:

(i)         remedy the alleged breach; or

(ii)        "commence and diligently pursue proceedings for a judicial determination as to whether the alleged acts or omissions constitute a breach or breaches on the part of the Lessee".

If the lessee fails to respond appropriately to a default notice, it may lose its lease or have to pay substantial damages to the lessor, or both.  This can happen whether or not there was any default in the first place.

In Laird v. Sword Energy Inc., [2014] A.J. No. 13 (January 7, 2014), Manderscheid, J. dismissed an application by a lessor for summary judgment based on an alleged failure to make a timely response to a default notice complaining about a supposed breach of the offset well clause.  In an earlier decision involving the same oil company defendant and the same form of lease, 1301905 Alberta Ltd. v. Sword Energy Inc., [2013] A.J. No. 190 (February 19, 2013), another judge, Lee, J. had ruled that the lessee, Sword Energy Inc. had failed to make an effective response to a similar default notice.  In a follow-up decision ([2013] A.J. No. 840), that judge had assessed damages based on the offset royalty that would have been payable.

Both cases arose out of an alleged breach by Sword of the offset well clause.  That clause places an onus on the lessee to take steps to prevent the lessor's reserves from being drained by an offset well – a well drilled on a spacing unit adjoining the leased lands – or else to compensate the lessor by paying an offset royalty.

In the earlier case (1301905 Alberta Ltd.), Sword had sent a reply to the default notice denying that it had breached the offset well clause.  In the more recent case, Sword (or more precisely, its 50% partner, Alberta Clipper Energy Inc.) had responded that, as the lessee "has no future plans for these lands, the lease will be allowed to expire on its own terms".  In terms of substance, it is difficult to see a great deal of difference between these two responses.

In the earlier case, Justice Lee had taken a literal approach to the default clause.  He held that the lease had been "cancelled" as a result of Sword's failure either to do anything to "remedy the breach" or else to commence legal proceedings, within 30 days of receiving the notice.  The only issue left for trial was the amount of damages payable by Sword.

In the Laird case, Justice Manderscheid distinguished the earlier case on the basis that, while in that case Sword had effectively admitted its breach of the default clause, in the Laird case it had made a timely response to the default notice by which it had arguably remedied the breach.

Several years earlier Sword had drilled a well on the Laird lands.  Tests showed the well to be incapable of commercial production from the relevant formation.  The default notice stated that Sword "has the obligation to make every reasonable effort to produce this well".  The judge found it unclear exactly what this meant.

Furthermore, Justice Manderscheid found a triable issue as to whether Sword was entitled to "surrender a Well [sic] that it has determined to be incapable of production without going through the additional expense of commencing a judicial proceeding".  He found that the lease was silent on the question of what might constitute adequate steps to remedy the breach in those circumstances.  Might an offer to surrender the lease be a sufficient step to "remedy the alleged breach"?

The judge's disinclination to grant a summary judgment is understandable, especially given the apparent futility (according to the evidence before him) of the type of steps demanded in the default notice.

Additional grounds for finding against the lessor in this case suggest themselves.  The offset clause is triggered by commercial production from a well on an adjacent parcel, but the lessee's obligation to act is subject to the proviso: "unless ... a well has been or is being drilled" on the relevant spacing unit within the lands. (emphasis added)  Did the fact that the earlier well had been drilled not engage this proviso?

Finally, given the harsh consequences being sought by the lessor, the court might also have considered exercising its equitable power to relieve against forfeiture.

Summary & Implications

As these two recent decisions show, while summary proceedings are available to terminate an oil and gas lease or to obtain a declaration of default on the part of the lessee, an application for summary judgment should only be pursued in the clearest of cases.

The result of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Locke Stock & Barrel case is reminiscent of what happened in Desoto Resources Ltd. v. EnCana Corp., [2011] A.J. No. 355.  In that case, a master granted summary judgment in favour of the lessor, holding that a P&NG lease had terminated.  As in Locke Stock & Barrel, the master's decision was upheld by a judge in chambers.  Also as in Locke Stock & Barrel, the Court of Appeal then reversed the judge's decision, holding that there were unresolved issues of fact that required a trial.  In both Desoto and Locke Stock & Barrel, the lessor's decision to proceed by way of summary judgment ultimately backfired, despite its initial successes.

In the final analysis, the facts of any case involving a problematic freehold lease will dictate which type of procedure is the most appropriate.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions