Court rules no intrusion of jurisdiction if commission's approval is subject to regulator's approval

Approval also does not cover entities not under commission's jurisdiction

Court rules no intrusion of jurisdiction if commission's approval is subject to regulator's approval
Integration Agreements was entered to address inefficiencies and competitive issues

The Court of Appeal for Alberta has ruled that the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) did not intrude over the jurisdiction of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) in approving the application of an entity under its regulatory supervision. The AUC decision specifically states that the approval was subject to AER approval.

At issue in Western Export Group v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2021 ABCA 349, was that ATCO Gas and Pipelines, Ltd. (ATCO) is under the regulatory oversight of the AUC, whereas Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) is under the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER). In order to address inefficiencies and competitive issues, ATCO and NGTL formally entered the Alberta System Integration Agreement. Under the Agreement, NGTL is responsible for operational planning and contracting of the Alberta natural gas transmission system. In order to increase capacity, NGTL determined that purchasing a pipeline would be the optimal solution and requested ATCO to acquire the pipeline since majority of it would be within ATCO’s footprint.

ATCO applied to the AUC for the regulatory approvals necessary to acquire the pipeline, which the applicants – customers of NGTL – opposed. AUC approved ATCO’s application subject to the AER approval. The applicants brought an application for permission to appeal this decision, alleging that the AUC intruded on the jurisdiction of the AER and CER.

The Court disagreed. Both ATCO’s application and the AUC decision specifically acknowledged that the approval was subject to AER approvals, said the Court. Further, the AUC only approved the requirements for ATCO, and did not approve or make any findings about NGTL, who must seek its own approvals in accordance with the procedure established by the CER, said the Court.

“As the AUC properly exercised its jurisdiction, this ground does not present a question of jurisdiction or law that raises a serious, arguable point,” said the Court, and thus, denied the leave to appeal.

Recent articles & video

Vote for Canadian Lawyer's Top Regional Ontario firms

Privacy and access authorities gather in Toronto to address emerging issues

Federal Court limits trademark to dining services, excludes sit-down and take-out offerings

Ontario Court of Appeal denies mother's bid to prevent child's return to Bangladesh

PEI Court of Appeal affirms property transfer to heir did not require subdivision approval

NS Court of Appeal affirms doctors' right to judicial review in dispute with health authority

Most Read Articles

Federal Court overturns study permit denial, citing unreasonable focus on applicant’s career plans

Ontario court rejects child protection agency’s ‘speculation and gossip’, orders child’s return

Pre-hearing request to review law firm's fees in personal injury case is premature: BC Supreme Court

SK Court of King’s Bench dismisses personal injury claim due to inordinate delay