File Nos: See Appendix B
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245
owner of SW 30-36-4-W4 and SE 30-36-4-W4 in March 2021, before the title to the SW 30 land was
registered in Greg Latimer’s name.
The Operator further submits that, given an agreement has been reached for these sites, the related
applications are no longer properly before the Tribunal and should not be considered in this proceeding.
Bennett submits the Compensation Reviews are invalid since Jean Latimer did not have the legal
right to sign them. He argues the Transfer of Land documents transferring the land to Greg Latimer were
signed on September 1, 2018. As these documents were fully executed by Jean Latimer, she had sold the
land and was no longer entitled to negotiate or receive compensation on those well sites. Since Mrs. Latimer
did not have the right to sign Compensation Reviews with Surge, the Operator negotiated the Agreements
on these surface leases with the wrong individual. Bennett did not provide evidence that Greg Latimer
registered an interest on the Certificate of Title prior to the registration of the Transfer of Land.
Bennett further submits Jean Latimer signed Assignment of Surface Lease documents assigning
certain surface leases to Greg Latimer dated July 27, 2015, October 9, 2015 and October 9, 2015. As such,
these assignments make the Compensation Reviews signed by Jean Latimer invalid as she did not have the
legal right to sign. As well, a Direction to Pay signed by Jean Latimer, dated February 8, 2021 directing
Surge to pay her the annual compensation for the Surface leases with Reference Nos. 4, 21, 42, 43, 44 and
47, includes three leases (Reference Nos. 42, 43 & 47) which were assigned to Greg Latimer in the
Assignment of Surface Leases dated October 9, 2015. It is argued that Mrs. Latimer does not have the legal
right to change the Direction to Pay on those leases.
Surge submits there are significant discrepancies within the “Alleged Assignment” of the three
leases with References #’s 42, 43 & 47. Molyneux testified Surge has no record of this particular
assignment. Further, while the agreement in question is dated October 9, 2015, the attached Schedule A
which includes the lease descriptions is dated October 15, 2015. In addition, the formatting is markedly
different than the other assignments included in Exhibit 3.
Although Bennett submits the belief that Assignments were signed on all of the surface leases, no
documentary evidence was provided to support the claim that an Assignment of the three identified Surface
Leases to Greg Latimer was agreed to by Mrs. Latimer. The Panel is not persuaded that there was an
assignment of surface leases from Jean Latimer to Greg Latimer with respect to SRB files SL2019.0088,
SL2019.0089 and SL2019.0105.
Based on the above, the Panel finds Jean Latimer was the registered owner of SW 30-36-4-W4 and
SE 30-36-4-W4 and a party to the surface leases at the time the Compensation Reviews were executed with
Surge. Further, the Operator was entitled to rely on the certificates of title at that time and Greg Latimer did
not have an interest registered on the certificate of title(s). The Panel is satisfied that Jean Latimer and the
operator reached a valid agreement on the rate of annual compensation for the eight dispositions
SL2019.0088; SL2019.0089; SL2019.0105; SL2021.0039; SL2019.0090; SL2021.0012; SL2021.0076 and
SL2021.0042. Each agreement clearly outlines the rate of compensation payable for each surface lease and
the effective date. There is no mechanism for the Panel to determine the rate of compensation or to vary
the compensation because the parties to the surface lease agreed on the rate of annual compensation under
each surface lease. The Panel is persuaded these applications should no longer be before the Tribunal and
should therefore be dismissed.
Applications under section 27 for files SL2019.0088; SL2019.0089; SL2019.0105; SL2021.0039;
SL2019.0090; SL2021.0012; SL2021.0076 and SL2021.0042 are dismissed.