ARTICLE
18 November 2014

Alberta Court Rules Novel Fracking Claim Against Province Has Reasonable Prospect Of Success

WS
Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP

Contributor

Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP logo
Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP www.willmsshier.com is Canada’s recognized leading environmental law firm, delivering a full range of environmental, Indigenous and energy law services. For 40 years, our clients have benefitted from our innovative, practical solutions and extensive knowledge of environmental, Indigenous, and energy and natural resource issues.  With 19 highly specialized lawyers, we are the largest private sector environmental law practice in Canada.  Seven of our lawyers are Environmental Law Specialists, certified by the Law Society of Ontario. Willms & Shier has offices in Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary and Yellowknife.  Our lawyers are called to the Bar in Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and Ontario.
On November 7, 2014, a decision by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta dismissed the Government of Alberta’s application to strike portions of Jessica Ernst’s claim against Alberta for allegedly failing to protect her water supply.
Canada Environment

On November 7, 2014, a decision by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta dismissed the Government of Alberta's application to strike portions of Jessica Ernst's claim against Alberta for allegedly failing to protect her water supply. The Court also dismissed Alberta's application for summary judgment.

In 2007, Ms. Ernst brought claims against EnCana Corporation, Alberta's Energy Resource Conservation Board (ERCB) and the Government of Alberta. Ms. Ernst sued EnCana for damages to her water supply allegedly caused by Encana's hydraulic fracturing (fracking) activity. Ms. Ernst also sued the Government of Alberta for allegedly failing to protect her water supply. In 2013, Ms. Ernst's claims against the ERCB for failing to respond to her concerns about her well water were struck and dismissed. This decision was upheld by Alberta's Court of Appeal in September 2014. Ms. Ernst is appealing the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Only the Government of Alberta participated in the recent application to strike Ms. Ernst's claim on the basis that she failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. In the alternative, Alberta requested summary judgment dismissing the action. Alberta argued that Ms. Ernst's claim should be dismissed on the basis that the statutory regimes applicable to Alberta establish only a duty of care to the public at large, and not a private duty of care to Ms. Ernst. Alberta also relied on the statutory immunity provisions contained in Alberta's Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and Alberta's Water Act. Alberta argued that the statutory immunity clauses protect the province from lawsuits by individuals affected by the administration of legislation.

Justice Neil Wittmann held that "while this is a novel claim, I find there is a reasonable prospect Ernst will succeed in establishing that Alberta owed her a prima facie duty of care". Justice Wittmann further held, "there is also a reasonable prospect that Ernst will succeed in defeating Alberta's statutory immunity claims on the basis that the provisions Alberta relies upon do not protect it, or, in the alternative, that Alberta acted in bad faith, resulting in no protection".

The Court dismissed Alberta's application for summary judgment, finding that Alberta was unable to establish that there was no genuine issue requiring trial. The Court also held that Alberta was unable to establish Ms. Ernst's claim had no merit.

This article was written with the assistance of Mark Youden, Student-at-Law.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More