The Court of Appeal of Alberta has confirmed that the Energy
Resources Conservation Board (now known as the Alberta Energy
Regulator) is immune from a negligence lawsuit by a landowner
claiming that hydraulic fracturing caused hazardous amounts of
methane, ethane and chemicals to contaminate her water well.
The appellant, Jessica Ernst, owns land near Rosebud, Alberta.
She sued EnCana Corporation for damage to her fresh water supply
allegedly caused by EnCana's activities, notably construction,
drilling, hydraulic fracturing and related activities in the
region. The Energy Resources Conservation Board had regulatory
jurisdiction over the activities of EnCana, and the appellant has
sued it for what was summarized as "negligent administration
of a regulatory regime" related to her claims against EnCana.
The appellant also sued the Province of Alberta, alleging that it
(through its department Alberta Environment and Sustainable
Resource Development) owed her a duty to protect her water supply,
and that it failed to respond adequately to her complaints about
In addition, Ms. Ernst alleged in her claim that she
participated in many of the regulatory proceedings before the
Board, and that she was a "vocal and effective critic" of
the Board. She alleged that between November 24, 2005 to March 20,
2007 the Board's Compliance Branch refused to accept further
communications from her. For this she has advanced a claim for
damages for breach of her right to free expression under the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Board applied to strike out certain portions of Ms.
Ernst's pleadings for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of
action. The case management judge found that the proposed
negligence claim against the Board was unsupportable at law. He
applied the three-part analysis relating to foreseeablity,
proximity and policy considerations. He found no private law duty
of care was owed to Ms. Ernst by the Board.
In the alternative, the case management judge found that any
claim against the Board was barred by s. 43 of the Energy Resources
43 No action or proceeding may be
brought against the Board or a member of the Board... in respect of
any act or thing done purportedly in pursuance of this Act, or any
Act that the Board administers, the regulations under any of those
Acts or a decision order or direction of the Board.
The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court and
dismissed Ms. Ernst's argument that the Board failed to respond
"reasonably" to EnCana's activities and held that a
tortuous claim alleging an omission to act was barred by section 43
of the Act. The Court of Appeal also held that section 43 barred
Ms. Ernst's Charter claim for a "personal remedy".
The Court of Appeal concluded that even if the Board effectively
breached Ms. Ernst's freedom of expression, that
"protecting administrative tribunals and their members from
liability for damages is constitutionally legitimate."
Ms. Ernst has said in the media she will appeal this latest
decision against her to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
Norton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide
the world's pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions
with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers
based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada,
Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all
the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy;
infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and
innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global
business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to
provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of
our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia,
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South
Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright &
Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members
('the Norton Rose Fulbright members') of Norton Rose
Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein
helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright
members but does not itself provide legal services to
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 Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
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).