Advanced Search

Syntax: "", OR, AND, EXACT(), /p, /s, /n
(YYYY or YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD)
Sort by: Relevance Date

786 result(s)

  • 776.

    Jackson vPine Cliff Energy Ltd - 2025 ABLPRT 378 - 2025-07-14

    SRA - S27: Review of Compensation - Yes
    Increase in Rate of Compensation
    Mineral Recovery

    • The negotiated agreements do not result in a specific, consistent value or rate, or a narrow range that is widely accepted in the area (see Ember Resources Inc. v Sich, 2017 ABSRB 942). [38] As a result, the Panel finds that there is no pattern of dealings established for the Sites.

  • 777.

    ATCO Electric Ltd. v Brown - 2025 ABLPRT 474 - 2025-08-15

    SRA - S23: Right of Entry Compensation - Yes
    Power Transmission Line

    Ember Resources Inc., ICG Utilities (Alberta) Ltd., Fairborne Energy Ltd.,

  • 778.

    Atco Electric Ltd v Halina - 2024 ABLPRT 423 - 2024-08-01

    SRA - S23: Right of Entry Compensation
    Costs

    (Remington Development Corporation v ENMAX Power Corporation, 2020 ABSRB 1007; Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. v. Prairie Gem Farm Ltd, 2013 ABSRB 611; and Ember Resources Inc. v Simber Farms Ltd, 2020 ABSRB 805; Tamarack Acquisition Corp. v Johnson et al, 2017 ABSRB 82).

  • 779.

    Atco Electric Ltd. v Hlus - 2023 ABLPRT SR609 - 2021-06-09

    SRA - S15: Right of Entry Granting
    Other

    [88] In Ember Resources Inc. v Sich, 2017 ABSRB 942, the Tribunal rejected a claim for $200.00 per hour by a chiropractor who suggested he was losing income while attending the hearing.

  • 780.

    Ovintiv Canada ULC v Vig - 2022 ABLPRT SR1349 - 2023-01-13

    SRA - S23: Right of Entry Compensation
    Other
    Pipeline

    [146] In Ember Resources Inc. v. Sich, 2017 ABSRB 942 the matter was a one-day hearing with complex evidence dealing with a specialized seed farm.

  • 781.

    Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Toews - 2022 ABLPRT SR1315 - 2021-06-14

    SRA - S23: Right of Entry Compensation
    Compensation

    In Ember Resources Inc. v Bates, 2020 ABSRB 600 ("Bates"), the following direction is provided to the Panel: "{27) The principles of interpretation require the Board to give a broad and purposeful inte1pretation of the Act. In this case the purpose of the Act is to ensure those who are subject to surface leases and rights   [...]  In Ember Resources Inc. v Bates, 2020 ABSRB 600 ("Bates"), the following direction is provided to the Panel: "[27) The principles of interpretation require the Board to give a broad and purposejid interpretation of the Act. In this case the purpose of the Act is to ensure those who are subject to swface leases and rights of

  • 782.

    Robson v BTG Energy Corp. - 2022 ABLPRT SR900354 - 2022-09-27

    SRA - S36: Recovery of Compensation
    Direction to Pay

    If, on the other hand, this is a reference to CNRL not having the opportunity to provide submissions before the Demand was issued, as this Panel ruled in Ember Resources Inc. v Buckland, 2021 ABLPRT 846, based on the scheme created in the legislation, Notice and Demand are statutory prerequisites to having the matter put

  • 783.

    ATCO Electric Ltd v B & K Holdings Ltd et al - 2025 ABLPRT 632 - 2025-10-07

    SRA - S27: Review of Compensation - Yes
    Increase in Rate of Compensation
    Power Transmission Line

    [9] Lynx Energy v Nelson, 2022 ABLPTRT 1200; Whitecap Resources Inc v Johnson, 2021 ABLPRT 479; Lynx Energy ULC v Fulton, 2021 ABLPRT 666; Ember Resources Inc v Bates, 2020 ABSRB 600. [10] There are only 6 reported decisions from the Tribunal in CanLII with ATCO as the Operator dealing with a five-year review with respect

  • 784.

    Canadian Natural Resources Limited-Wilson Laycraft - 2021 ABLPRT MG0623 - 2021-11-15

    MGA - Part 9: Designated Industrial Property
    Land Use Bylaw
    Other

    [166] In dealing with fairness and equity in the application of the valuation standard, the Applicant cited the most recent decision was Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v Ember Resources Inc., 2018 ABQB 971 (Ember) (Exhibit C31, Tab 31). The Court, in a judicial review of the Board decision, confirmed the Board   [...]  [167] The Applicant also referred to GT Group Telecom Services Corp., MGB 117/04 (GT Group) (Exhibit R9, Tab 6) and suggests that if the decision is read in the context of the MGA and Court decision in Ember, the equity principle is far broader than that suggested by the Respondent.

  • 785.

    Fort Hills Energy Corp. v Provincial Assessor - 2022 ABLPRT MG1333 - 2022-10-24

    MGA - Part 9: Designated Industrial Property
    Land Use Bylaw
    Other

    This interpretation is in line with many previous authorities; see, for example, Municipal Government Board order MGB 075/16 at para 67, upheld on judicial review by Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v Ember Resources Inc., 2018 ABQB 971. In the case now before the Tribunal, the Complainant has demonstrated that

  • 786.

    Fort Hills Energy Corp (Wilson Laycraft) - 2024 ABLPRT MG0149 - 2024-03-21

    MGA - Part 9: Designated Industrial Property
    Land Use Bylaw
    Other

    This interpretation is in line with many previous authorities; see, for example, Municipal Government Board order MGB 075116 at para 67, upheld on judicial review by Alberta (Minister of Municipal Affairs) v Ember Resources Inc., 2018 ABQB 971. In the case now before the Tribunal, the Complainant has demonstrated that