Canada: Speculation Is Evil - And Costly

(Stewart Estate v TAQA North Ltd, 2015 ABCA 357)

"Disgorgement of net benefits"
(Stewart Estate, par 417). Ouch.

IF YOU ARE THINKING, "DISGORGEMENT" SOUNDS LIKE AN UNHAPPY WORD, YOU ARE CORRECT. To be clear, it is also a super cool word. It sounds like something you might do to a dragon. The wee little problem is that the dragon in the Stewart Estate case is us, lessees producing from dead freehold leases.


First, a quick summary of the facts:

  • Non-CAPL freehold lease entered into in the 1960s. "Are produced" clause in habendum. "Lack of or intermittent market" or "any cause whatsoever beyond the lessee's reasonable control" not counted provision in the 4th proviso.
  • 7-25 gas well spud and produced during the primary term. No production from 1995 to 2001. Recommences production in 2001. Production suspended by ERCB (AER) in 2011 for other reasons. Sweet Basal Quartz and sour Wabamun production.
  • Lessors, in concert with a top lessee Freehold Solutions, commence a Court action in 2005 seeking a declaration that the leases terminated in 1995 when the 7-25 well was shut-in. They also issued a Notice to Vacate at that time.

Decision - Dead Lease

Shockingly, the Court found the leases were dead. Of course, I jest. The leases are always dead.

Mr. Justice O'Ferrall sets out this principle problem with free­hold leases quite succinctly:

(347) Historically, in drafting the terms of petroleum and natural gas leases, oil companies wanted to be free to walk away from their leases. They wished to avoid being stuck with the obligations of a tenant under a conventional real property lease. So, oil companies drafted forms of leases which permitted them to unilaterally abandon their leases at any time. Hence the "unless" and "so long as" clauses in oil and gas leases. The problem presented by such clauses is that a lessee can unwittingly cause a lease to expire according to its terms. As John Ballem so aptly stated in the preface to the first edition of his book, the oil and gas lease contains "hazards to the lessee" because of the "dogged determination of oil companies to continue with the lethal 'unless' type of drilling clauses". Ballem describes these clauses as being "explicable" only in terms of "a corporate death wish". The same could also be said of the "so long as" clauses in continued production provisos which are in issue in this case. (emphasis mine)

This of course is an issue larger than the Stewart Estate decision. The issue is the very nature of the oil and gas lease. An oil and gas lease "is not a traditional lease because it grants a profit à pren­dre, rights to minerals in situ below the surface." (Stewart Estate, par 162).

Unless and until we decide to fundamentally rewrite the terms of the freehold lease to make it into something more durable than a mere profit à pren­dre (the right to win, take and remove), we cannot expect to get better results from the Courts.

Speculation is Evil

Once the Court found the leases were dead, it next considered how to interpret the contract (the leases) as between the lessor and lessee, in respect of the nature of the wrong committed by the lessee. The Court relies heavily of the prior decisions of Omers Energy Inc v Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board}, 2011 ABCA 251and Freyberg v Fletcher Challenge Oil & Gas Inc, 2007 ABQB 353, 428 AR 102 in formulating its interpretive lens.

From Omers and Freyberg comes the unsurprising concept that the words of the lease must be interpreted by the Court by searching for the intention of the parties (the lessor and lessee).

More annoying is that the Court's search for the intention of the parties results in a finding that "speculation" by oil and gas companies is somehow evil:

(73) As this court remarked in Freyberg, it strains common sense to think that a lessor would tie up its land past the primary term for a lessee's speculative purposes and for a well that lacked commercial viability: para 50. As reinforced in Omers, the third proviso was not intended to permit a lessee to hold a property for purely speculative purposes: para 95. The common purpose and goal of parties entering into the lease is to develop the resource for the purpose of making a profit: Omers at paras 77 and 95; Freyberg at paras 50-51. Any interpretation which defeats that purpose should be rejected in favour of one which promotes that purpose and a sensible commercial result: Omers at para 78. (emphasis mine)

This is the first major decision on remedies post Omers, and the Court relies heavily on the Omers interpretive lens to justify a greater measure of damages. Me thinks that all subsequent free­ hold lease decisions will be interpreted through this lens.Wind is blowing one way; we appear to be peeing against it.

...and Costly

Once the lease is dead, the issue is how much does it costs the oil and gas company (i.e. what are the damages payable by the lessee to the lessor). Damages are based upon two causes of action, trespass and conversion.

Best Royalty Plus Bonus Rejected

From the remedies decision in Freyberg, Williston Wildcatters, 2001 SKQB 360, affd 2002 SKCA 91, and the trial decision in Stewart Estate, many people, included myself, concluded that the proper measure of damages for trespass or conversion by a lessee under a dead lease was the "Royalty Method." Justice Rowbothem summarized the royalty method as follows:

(196)... When neither party knew of the trespass and the property owner would have been unable to realize the benefit the trespasser obtained from the trespass, courts have permitted the trespasser to retain the benefit of the trespass and ordered the trespasser to pay the property owner a reasonable fee for the use of the property. This is known as the "royalty method". The lessee pays the property owner contractually agreed royalties and any bonus associated with negotiating a new lease. (emphasis mine)

This measure of damages is based upon the utterly common sense proposition that where the lessor is an individual not involved in the oil and gas business, it would never, ever, be in a realistic position to drill a well. Ergo, compensatory damages (to put the lessor in the same position as if the wrong had not occurred), means damages are limited to the best royalty and any fresh bonus the lessor could have negotiated at the date the lease terminated.

Many of us believed that to give the lessor more would be punitive, and punitive damages are generally not awarded in Canada, unlike the good ol' US of A, where you can get millions for spilling a coffee on your crotch.

Of course, the elephant in the room is that the "royalty approach" means that an oil and gas company can quite easily decide to continue to produce a dead lease, because, well, honestly the measure of damages is pretty dam low.

Notwithstanding the prior decisions that ignored the elephant, this Court was not amused:

(209) First, and foremost, the royalty approach ignores the ownership of the gas after the termination of the lease. It is the lessor and not the lessee who owns the gas. Once a lease has terminated, "it is the lessor, not the lessee who owns the minerals. In the absence of bad faith on the part of the lessee, and following the (Sohio) approach, it would seem equitable to apply a form of restitution": Ballem at 388. Moreover, the royalty approach used by the trial judge "could encourage the lessee to continue producing the well after the lease has been challenged, knowing that the financial consequences will not be severe. Indeed, it would be very much to the lessee's advantage to do so, as the result could end up being almost the same as if the lease continued to be valid.... This, despite the fact that the lessee had enjoyed revenue from the production of minerals to which it had no legal title": Ballem at 389. (emphasis mine)

Does anyone else smell elephant poo?

Disgorgement (Mild Rule)

Now we get to the crux of the matter. Speculation is evil. Best royalty plus bonus is unfair. So what then is the proper measure of damages? The answer is disgorgement:

(213]...but when circumstances call for a different measure, disgorgement of defendant's benefit is a potential remedy... (416] ... the court is not simply compensating for tres­ pass. It is also compensating for a wrongful conversion. In other words, the wrongdoers (the lessees) not only over­ held, but they also damaged (depleted or wasted) the reversion while they overheld. An irreplaceable value was taken from the fee. This was not simply a wrongful occupation of land for which compensation for use and occupation (e.g., rent) might be appropriate. This was a wrongful failure to vacate accompanied by a wrongful conversion of personal property (when the hydrocarbons were severed from the realty and produced by the lessees) for which the value of the goods wrongfully converted may be an appropriate measure of damages. (emphasis mine)

At law, disgorgement can be applied harshly or mildly.1\vo of the three judges choose the "mild rule" to calculate damages in this case:

[1.d.i] Rowbotham JA and O'Ferrall JA direct the respondents to disgorge revenues less production, gathering and processing, i.e., on a net basis... (the so-called "mild rule"). (emphasis mine)

Ouch. The cost for producing a dead lease is now your total net revenue. It's not so easy anymore to simply ignore a dead lease and keep on pumping.

Disgorgement (Harsh Rule)

We should be happy that only one judge choose the "harsh rule" of disgorgement:

[1.d.ii] McDonald JA would impose disgorgement of the respondent's gross revenues (the so-called-harsh rule). (emphasis mine)

Double ouch. Damages equal to gross revenues, with no allowance for cost and deductions.

I would like to say that the harsh rule will never be applicable in a dead lease trespass and conversion case, but it is tough to fight the logic of Justice McDonald:

(313) We are dealing with large, sophisticated and well-in­ formed corporations on the one hand, and lay people, including the proverbial "little old lady in the nursing home" on the other. The need for the former to act in good faith when discharg­ ing their contractual obligations to the latter has been highlighted with the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, (2014) 3 SCR 494. See also Freyberg at para 82. (emphasis mine)

Once the genie is out of the bottle for a Court to do more than simply compensate a lessor, all the interpretive concepts discussed above seem to point to damages creeping closer and closer to the Harsh Rule. Who knows, I never thought the Mild Rule would be applied.

Limitation of Action - the Good News

Now for some good news: At least until lessors, or top lessee's like Freehold Solutions, get smart and start suing faster and more often.

Two of the three judges found that the two-year limitation in the Limitations Act applied to the lessors. The Court found that the lessors knew or ought to have known that the leases might have terminated once they stopped receiving royalties. Once that trigger starts, they need to sue or lose the right to sue for damages:

(7) However, the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12 is a complete defence to claims that arose before August 9, 2003, two years before the statement of claim was filed.

Due to the breach (trespass and conversion) being continuous, a new cause of action accrues monthly. So the leases are dead in either 1995 (two judges) or 2000 (one judge}, but the limitation period is a two-year look back from the statement of claim date due to the continuous breach.

This is again shocking to me. I swear I am really a lawyer, perhaps maybe just a dumb one. I had assumed that the two-year look back, which was applied to a sophisticated Landman in Canadian Natural Resources Limited v jensen Resources Ltd, 2013 ABCA 399, would not apply to non-industry, unsophisticated lessors. I had assumed they would be provided with the ultimate 10-year look back period under the Limitations Act. You know what they say about assuming. So, two-year look back it is.

Note 1

The decision includes an excellent analysis of the measure of damages payable during the time period after the lease dies until the lessor demands that the lessee stop producing or files a statement of claim. Concepts of "consent to occupy" and "leave and license" are really fleshed out and are shown as a true limit on disgorgement damages. These concepts also provide some merit to the very annoying Landman lament that the lessor is still cashing the cheques. However, the reverse may also be true, such that a lessor could revoke you leave and license (like the Notice to Vacate issued in Stewart Estate}, even before a statement of claim is filed and begin the clock on higher damages. Fascinating, but a discussion for another day.

Note 2

Stewart Estate is also extremely important in its discussion of the 4th proviso of the non-CAPL lease where the lessee is entitled to not produce due to a "lack of or intermittent market"or "any cause whatsoever beyond the lessee's reasonable control." Stunningly, the Court upheld the trial decision that the fourth proviso allows a lessee to not produce where an objectively uneconomical market for production from the well exists. Seems like a big win, but the Court's analysis, and the withering dissent, likely means the application of this clause will still be a Hail Mary pass for most lessees. Again, due to space, a discussion for another day.

Originally published by The Negotiator.

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.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.