. just need to ge  
Citation:  
Latimer v Surge Energy Inc., 2022 ABLPRT 245  
Date:  
File Nos.  
2022-02-02  
See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Municipality: Special Area 4  
The Surface Rights Board (“SRB”) is continued under the name Land and Property Rights Tribunal  
(“Tribunal”), and any reference to Surface Rights Board or Board is a reference to the Tribunal.  
In the matter of a proceeding commenced under section 27 of the Surface Rights Act, RSA 2000,  
c S-24 (the “Act”)  
And in the matter of land in the Province of Alberta within:  
Section 30-36-5-W4M; S ½-31-36-4-W4M and E ½ 21-36-5-W4M (the “Land”)  
Between:  
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA  
AS REPRESENTED BY MINISTER OF FORESTRY, LANDS AND WILDLIFE  
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER  
OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS (SPECIAL AREAS BOARD),  
GREGORY E LATIMER, (applicant)  
JEAN LATIMER (applicant)  
and  
MARVA COLTMAN, (applicant)  
Lessors,  
- and -  
SURGE ENERGY INC.  
Operator.  
Before:  
Jerry Zezulka, Presiding Chair  
Dennis Dey  
Miles Weatherall  
(the “Panel”)  
DECISION  
1
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
APPEARANCES  
For the Operator:  
Daron Naffin, Counsel, Bennett Jones LLP  
Sam Denstedt, Associate, Bennett Jones LLP  
Robert J. Telford, Telford Land & Valuation Inc.  
Trevor Sheehan, Canadian Resource Valuation Group  
Malcolm Torpe, Surge Energy Inc.  
Kelsey Molyneux, Manager Surface Land, Surge Energy Inc.  
For the Lessors:  
Daryl Bennett, Representative for Greg Latimer and Marva Coltman, My  
Landman Group  
Greg Latimer, Owner (NE 21-36-5-W4; SW 30-36-4-W4); Occupant (SE & SW  
31-36-4-W4) and Owner Representative (SE 30-36-4-W4)  
Greg Latimer and Marva Coltman, Owners (NW 30-36-4-W4)  
Jean Latimer did not attend the hearing  
BACKGROUND  
[1]  
Over the period March 27, 2019 to May 3, 2019 the Tribunal received three section 27 applications  
from Greg Latimer and Jean Latimer (SL2019.0088; SL2019.0089 and SL2019.0090) and three  
applications from Greg Latimer (SL2019.0096; SL2019.0097 and SL2019.0105) requesting a review of the  
rate of compensation on eight surface leases as follows:  
Applicant(s)  
Application  
Date  
SRB File  
Land  
Surface Lease(s)  
Greg Latimer  
(Jean Latimer)  
March 27, 2019 SL2019.0088 SW 30-36-4-W4 100/4-30-36-4-W4  
1S0/4-30-36-4-W4  
1C0/430-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer  
March 27, 2019 SL2019.0089 SW 30-36-4-W4 1A0/4-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer  
(Jean Latimer)  
March 27, 2019 SL2019.0090 SW 30-36-4-W4 102/4-30-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer  
April 15, 2019  
SL2019.0096 NE 21-36-5-W4  
10D/10-21-36-5-  
W4  
2
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Applicant(s)  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Application  
Date  
SRB File  
Land  
Surface Lease(s)  
Greg Latimer  
April 15, 2019  
SL2019.0097 NW 30-36-4-W4 12-30-36-4-W4  
Battery Site  
Greg Latimer  
May 3, 2019  
SL2019.0105 SW 30-36-4-W4 100/3-30-36-4-W4  
[2]  
It is noted that Jean Latimer, although not included as an applicant, was a signatory to the  
application corresponding to SRB file SL2019.0089  
[3]  
An Appointment of Personal Representative form, dated March 23, 2019, appointed Greg Latimer  
and/or Marva Coltman as personal representatives of Greg Latimer and/or Jean Latimer, referring to section  
30-36-4-W4 and S1/2 31-36-4-W4 as lands.  
[4]  
An Appointment of Personal Representative form signed April 9, 2019 appointed Marva Coltman  
as personal representative of Greg Latimer noting 30-36-4 W4 as lands.  
[5]  
An Appointment of Personal Representative form signed on December 27, 2020 appointed Daryl  
Bennett of My Landman Group, (“Bennett”) as personal representative of Greg Latimer with respect to  
section 27 applications.  
[6]  
On January 4, 2021 Bennett submitted 41 additional section 27 applications with Greg Latimer as  
the Applicant and only signatory, requesting a review of the rate of compensation on surface leases as  
follows:  
Applicant(s)  
Document  
SRB File  
Land  
Surface Lease(s)  
100/7-31-36-4-W4  
100/3-31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0009 SE 31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0010 SW 31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
SL2021.0011 NW 30-36-4-W4  
1D0/11-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
SL2021.0012 SW 30-36-4-W4  
1C0/6-30-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0014 SW 31-36-4-W4  
100/4-31-36-4-W4  
&
4-31-36-4-W4  
3
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Applicant(s) Document  
SRB File  
Land  
Surface Lease(s)  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
SL2021.0017 NW 30-36-4-W4  
104/12-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
SL2021.0019 NW 30-36-4-W4  
100/14-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0020 NE30-36-4-W4  
100/10-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0021 SW 31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0024 SE 31-36-4-W4  
100/6-31-36-4-W4  
102/7-31-36-4-W4  
104/7-31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0026 SW 31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0028 SE 31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0029 SW 31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0030 NE30-36-4-W4  
104/4-31-36-4-W4  
100/8-31-36-4-W4  
102/6-31-36-4-W4  
1A0/14-30-36-4-  
W4  
102/15-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0032 SW 31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0033 SW 31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0034 SW 31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0035 SW 31-36-4-W4  
105/4-31-36-4-W4  
103/6-31-36-4-W4  
104/6-31-36-4-W4  
107/4-31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
SL2021.0036 NW 30-36-4-W4  
1D0/13-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
SL2021.0037 NW 30-36-4-W4  
102/13-30-36-4-  
W4  
4
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Applicant(s) Document  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
SRB File  
Land  
Surface Lease(s)  
102/8-30-36-4-W4  
100/7-30-36-4-W4  
100/5-30-36-4-W4  
SL2021.0039 SE- 30-36-4-W4  
SL2021.0042 SE 30-36-4-W4  
SL2021.0045 SW 30-36-4-W4  
SL2021.0047 NW 30-36-4-W4  
105/11-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
SL2021.0049 SW 30-36-4-W4  
SL2021.0051 NW 30-36-4-W4  
102/6-30-36-4-W4  
1B2/12-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0054 NE 30-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease SL2021.0055 NW 30-36-4-W4  
102/9-30-36-4-W4  
103/14-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0056 NE 30-36-4-W4  
100/15-30-36-4-  
W4  
102/16-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0057 SW 31-36-4-W4  
102/3-31-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0058 NE30-31-36-4-  
W4  
100/9-30-36-4-W4  
100/16-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
SL2021.0061 NW30-36-4-W4  
SL2021.0063 NW 30-36-4-W4  
102/11-30-36-4-  
W4  
100/11-30-36-4-  
W4  
5
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Applicant(s) Document  
SRB File  
Land  
Surface Lease(s)  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0064 NE 30-36-4-W4  
103/15-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
SL2021.0066 NW 30-36-4-W4  
1B0/12-30-36-4-  
W4  
SL2021.0070 NW 30-36-4-W4  
SL2021.0071 NW 30-36-4-W4  
SL2021.0072 NW 30-36-4-W4  
103/11-30-36-4-  
W4  
1A0/13-30-36-4-  
W4  
1D2/13-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Consent of Occupant SL2021.0074 NE- 30-36-4-W4  
102/10-30-36-4-  
W4  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
Greg Latimer Surface Lease  
SL2021.0076 SW 30-36-4-W4  
SL2021.0078 NW 30-36-4-W4  
102/5-30-36-4-W4  
12-30-36-4-W4  
[7]  
The reference spreadsheet in Exhibit 1, Hearing Document Package (HDP) 1.1 provides details  
for each application including reference number, SRB file number, legal descriptions, document type,  
review date, landowner/occupant, current rent, and requested rent for the 47 section 27 files and 8 section  
30 damage claims. There was no dispute among the parties as to the initial information provided in the  
reference spreadsheet.  
[8]  
The following table provides the details for the section 27 Applications.  
6
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Details of Initial Section 27 Applications  
Ref. s27 Application Legal  
No.  
Acres Document  
Facilities  
Lease Date  
Review Date  
Current  
Rent  
1
2
3
4
5
SL2021.0009  
SL2021.0010  
SL2021.0011  
SL2021.0012  
SL2021.0014  
100/7-31-  
36-4 W4M  
100/3-31-  
36-4 W4M  
1D0/11-30- 2.23  
36-4 W4M  
1C0/6-30-  
36-4 W4M  
100/4-31-  
36-4 W4M  
and 4-31-  
36-4 W4M  
4.88  
4.59  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Water Injection, Wellsite  
and Access road  
Water Injection, Wellsite  
and Access road  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
and access road  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
and access road  
August 30, 1979  
April 26, 1979  
August 30, 2019  
April 26, 2019  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
$4,150.00  
$2,300.00  
$1,900.00  
September 16,  
1991  
December 14,  
1991  
December 19,  
1991  
September 16,  
2016  
December 14,  
2016  
December 19,  
2016  
3.14  
3.45  
Satellite Suspended Oil,  
Wellsite, Access Road,  
Satellite  
6
SL2021.0017  
SL2021.0019  
SL2021.0020  
SL2021.0021  
SL2021.0024  
104/12-30- 1.84  
36-4 W4M  
100/14-30- 2.85  
36-4 W4M  
100/10-30- 2.79  
36-4 W4M  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Suspended Oil , wellsite  
December 19,  
1991  
July 7, 1992  
December 19,  
2016  
July 7, 2017  
$2,100.00  
$2,500.00  
7
Producing Oil, Well site  
and access road  
Water Injection, Wellsite  
and Access road  
Observation, Wellsite and December 31,  
Satellite 1993  
Suspended and Producing March 11, 1994  
Oil, Wellsite  
8
October 24, 1992 October 24, 2017 $1,500.00  
9
100/6-31-  
36-4 W4M  
102/7-31-  
36-4 W4M,  
104/7-31-  
36-4 W4M  
104/4-31-  
36-4 W4M  
100/8-31-  
36-4 W4M  
102/6-31-  
36-4 W4M  
2.66  
December 31,  
2018  
March 11, 2019  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
10  
2.78  
11  
12  
13  
SL2021.0026  
SL2021.0028  
SL2021.0029  
2.29  
3.66  
2.87  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
Water Injection, Wellsite  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
July 12, 1994  
July 25, 1994  
July 25, 1994  
July 12, 2019  
July 25, 2019  
July 25, 2019  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
7
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref. s27 Application Legal  
No.  
Acres Document  
Facilities  
Lease Date  
Review Date  
Current  
Rent  
14  
SL2021.0030  
1A0/14-30- 1.99  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Producing and Suspended March 12, 1992  
Oil, Wellsite  
March 12, 2017  
$1,500.00  
36-4 W4M,  
102/15-30-  
36-4 W4M  
15  
16  
17  
SL2021.0032  
SL2021.0033  
SL2021.0034  
105/4-31-  
36-4 W4M  
103/6-31-  
36-4 W4M  
104/6-31-  
36-4 W4M  
3.87  
2.38  
1.51  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
and Access Road  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
September 21,  
1994  
September 21,  
1994  
September 21,  
2019  
September 21,  
2019  
November 30,  
2019  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
Producing Oil, Wellsite November 30,  
1994  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  
26  
27  
SL2021.0035  
SL2021.0036  
SL2021.0037  
SL2021.0039  
SL2021.0042  
SL2021.0045  
SL2021.0047  
SL2021.0049  
SL2021.0051  
SL2021.0054  
107/4-31-  
36-4 W4M  
1D0/13-30- 3.19  
36-4 W4M  
102/13-30- 3.37  
36-4 W4M  
102/8-30-  
36-4 W4M  
100/7-30-  
36-4 W4M  
100/5-30-  
36-4 W4M  
105/11-30- 2.05  
36-4 W4M  
102/6-30-  
3.30  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Water Injection, Wellsite  
and Access Road  
Suspended Oil, Wellsite  
and Access Road  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
and Access Road  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
and Access Road  
March 8, 1995  
March 12, 1992  
April 7, 1995  
June 15, 2015  
March 8, 2020  
March 12, 2017  
April 7, 2020  
June 15, 2020  
$1,400.00  
$2,300.00  
$2,200.00  
$3,200.00  
$2,450.00  
$2,900.00  
$2,400.00  
$2,700.00  
$2,300.00  
$1,800.00  
2.20  
2.99  
3.36  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
November 22,  
2011  
April 26, 1993  
November 22,  
2016  
April 26, 2018  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
and Access Road  
Producing Oil, Wellsite.  
November 15,  
2001  
November 15,  
2001  
November 15,  
2016  
November 15,  
2016  
3.20  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
and Access Road  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
36-4 W4M  
1B2/12-30- 2.93  
36-4 W4  
102/9-30-  
36-4 W4M  
January 8, 1997  
January 8, 2017  
2.99  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
December 21,  
1995  
December 21,  
2020  
8
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref. s27 Application Legal  
No.  
Acres Document  
Facilities  
Water Injection, Wellsite  
Lease Date  
Review Date  
Current  
Rent  
$2,600.00  
28  
SL2021.0055  
103/14-30- 2.40  
Surface  
January 8, 2001  
January 8, 2016  
36-4 W4M  
100/15-30- 3.81  
36-4 W4M  
and  
Lease  
Consent of  
Occupant  
29  
SL2021.0056  
D&A and Suspended Oil, February 23,  
Wellsite and Access Road 1977  
(NE 30)  
February 23, 2017 $1,500.00  
102/16-30-  
36-4 W4M  
30  
31  
SL2021.0057  
SL2021.0058  
102/3-31-  
36-4 W4M  
100/9-30-  
36-4-W4M  
& 100/16-  
30-36-4-  
W4M  
4.02  
2.81  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Suspended Gas, Wellsite  
and Access Road  
Abandoned Oil, Wellsite  
and Access Road  
March 12, 1992  
March 12, 2011  
March 12, 2017  
March 12, 2017  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
32  
33  
34  
35  
36  
37  
38  
39  
40  
SL2021.0061  
SL2021.0063  
SL2021.0064  
SL2021.0066  
SL2021.0070  
SL2021.0071  
SL2021.0072  
SL2021.0074  
SL2021.0076  
102/11-30- 2.86  
36-4 W4M  
100/11-30- 2.07  
36-4 W4M  
103/15-30- 2.15  
36-4 W4M  
1B0/12-30- 1.22  
36-4 W4M  
103/11-30- 2.47  
36-4 W4M  
1A0/13-30- 1.65  
36-4 W4M  
1D2/13-30- 2.03  
36-4 W4M  
102/10-30- 2.4  
36-4 W4M  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Surface  
Lease  
Water Disposal, Wellsite  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
April 26, 1993  
July 7, 1992  
July 7, 1992  
April 26, 2018  
July 7, 2017  
July 7, 2017  
$3,000.00  
$2,500.00  
$1,500.00  
$1,100.00  
$2,300.00  
$2,200.00  
$2,200.00  
$1,600.00  
$1,800.00  
Suspended Oil, Wellsite  
and Header  
Abandoned Oil, Wellsite  
Addition  
September 16,  
1991  
November 19,  
1991  
December 21,  
1995  
December 21,  
1995  
September 16,  
2016  
November 19,  
2016  
December 21,  
2020  
December 21,  
2020  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
Suspended Oil, Header  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
February 6, 2006 February 6, 2016  
102/5-30-  
36-4 W4M  
(Portion  
2.11  
Producing Oil, Portion of  
Wellsite  
August 3, 2006 August 3, 2016  
SW 30)  
9
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref. s27 Application Legal  
No.  
Acres Document  
Facilities  
Valve Site  
Pad Site;  
Producing Oil, Suspended  
Oil and Producing Oil.  
Wellsite  
Lease Date  
July 20, 2012  
July 7, 1992  
Review Date  
July 20, 2017  
July 7, 2017  
Current  
Rent  
$1,400.00  
41  
SL2021.0078  
12-30-36-4 0.58  
Surface  
Lease  
Surface  
Lease  
W4M  
42  
SL2019.0088  
SW ¼-30- 2.79  
36-4-W4M  
100/4-30-  
$2,800.00  
36-4 W4M,  
1S0/4-30-  
36-4 W4M  
1C0/4-30-  
36-4 W4M  
SW ¼-30- 3.05  
36-4-W4M  
1A0/4-30-  
36-4 W4M  
SW ¼-30- 2.90  
36-4-W4M  
102/4-30-  
43  
44  
SL2019.0089  
SL2019.0090  
Surface  
Lease  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
and Access Road  
March 12, 1992  
July 25, 1994  
March 12, 2017  
July 25, 2019  
$2,200.00  
$3,200.00  
Surface  
Lease  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
and Access Road  
36-4 W4M  
45  
46  
47  
SL2019.0097  
SL2019.0096  
SL2019.0105  
NW ¼-30- 7.23  
36-4-W4M  
12-30-36-4  
W4M  
Surface  
Lease  
Battery  
August 8, 1991  
August 8, 2016  
$4,400.00  
$2,200.00  
$2,300.00  
NE ¼-21-  
NE  
Surface  
Lease  
Abandoned well  
NE 21*  
February 16,  
1989  
SE 21*  
March 29, 1989  
NE 21  
February 16, 2016  
SE 21  
36-5-W4M 21  
1D0/10-21- 4.10  
36-5 W4M SE 21  
1.03  
SW ¼-30- 3.25  
36-4-W4M  
March 29, 2016  
Surface  
Lease  
Abandoned Water  
Injection, Wellsite and  
Access Road  
July 7, 1992  
July 7, 2017  
100/3-30-  
36-4 W4M  
* There are two agreements with different dates reflecting the well site and access road on NE 21 and the access road on SE 21  
10  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[9]  
On March 27, 2019 the Tribunal received section 30 applications from Greg Latimer and Jean  
Latimer requesting losses or damages on five lease sites located on SW 30-36-4-W4 identified as follows:  
Applicant(s)  
Claim  
SRB File  
Land  
Site(s)  
Greg Latimer  
(Jean Latimer)  
$22,500  
DD2019.0007 SW 30-36-4-W4 100/4-30-36-4-W4  
1S0/4-30-36-4-W4  
1C0/430-36-4-W4  
1A0/4-30-36-4-W4  
102/4-30-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer  
(Jean Latimer)  
$3000.00  
DD2019.0008 Withdrawn  
DD2019.0025 Withdrawn  
Greg Latimer  
(Jean Latimer)  
$11,445.00  
[10]  
The section 30 Applications included the Appointment of Personal Representative signed on  
March 27, 2019 which appoints Greg Latimer and or Marva Coltman as representatives of Greg Latimer  
and/or Jean Latimer referring to Section 30-36-4-W4 and S1/2 31-36-4-W4.  
[11]  
An Appointment of Personal Representative signed on December 27, 2020 appointed Daryl  
Bennett of My Landman Group, as personal representative of Greg Latimer and Marva Coltman with  
respect to section 30 applications.  
[12]  
A December 30, 2020, email from Bennett to Tribunal Administration indicates the landowners  
are withdrawing damage claims DD2019.0008 for $3000.00 and DD2019.0025 for $11,445.00. As well,  
Bennett on behalf of Greg Latimer and Marva Coltman submitted seven additional section 30  
Applications seeking loss or damages. These section 30 claims for damages, amounts and causes are as  
follows:  
a) A claim for $6,750.00 related to the Operator’s fences resulting in additional time for checking  
cattle for the period June 1, 2019 to August 31, 2019 and 30 days in June 2020. (DD2020.0042)  
b) A claim for $21,865.00 for lost grazing on NW 30-36-4-W4 and SW 31-36-4-W4.  
(DD2020.0043)  
c) A claim for $38,354.00 related to fencing issues. (DD2020.0044)  
d) A claim for $750.00 for picking up garbage. (DD2020.0045)  
e) A claim for $6,500.00 for costs related to building a new road with a snow fence for access to  
residence. (DD2020.0046)  
f) A claim for $3,600.00 related to electrical disruptions. (DD2020.0047)  
g) A claim for $6,152.00 related trespassing issues. (DD20201.0048)  
11  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[13]  
The lease site reference numbers for each of the damage claim applications are as follows:  
Ref. Applicant (s)  
Section 30  
File  
Claim  
Land  
Site Reference No.  
48  
49  
50  
Greg Latimer  
(Jean Latimer)  
DD2019.0007 $22,500  
Section 30-36-4-W4 # 3,4, 6, 7, 8, 14, 19,  
20, 22, 24, 26, 28,  
32, 33, 34, 35, 36,  
37, 38, 39, 40, 41,  
42, 43 & 44  
Greg Latimer  
& Marva  
Coltman  
DD2020.0042 $6,750.00  
Section 30-36-4-W4 #3,4, 6, 7, 8, 14, 19,  
20, 22, 24, 26, 28,  
32, 33, 34, 35, 36,  
37, 38, 39, 40, 41,  
42, 43 & 44  
NW 30 refer to #3,  
6, 7, 19, 20, 24, 26,  
28, 32, 33, 35, 36,  
37, 38 & 41  
Greg Latimer  
& Marva  
Coltman  
DD2020.0043 $21,865.00 NW 30-36-4-W4  
SW 31-36-4-W4  
c) SW 31 refers to #  
5,9,11, 15, 17 & 18  
NW 30 refer to #3,  
6,7, 19, 20, 24, 26,  
28, 32, 33, 35, 36,  
37, 38 &, 41  
51  
52  
Greg Latimer  
& Marva  
Coltman  
DD2020.0044 $38,354..00 NW 30-36-4-W4  
SW 31-36-4-W4  
SW 31 refers to # 5,  
9,11, 15, 17, 18  
Section 30-36-4-W4 #3,4, 6, 7, 8, 14, 19,  
20, 22, 24, 26, 28,  
Greg Latimer  
& Marva  
DD2020.0045 $750.00  
Coltman  
32, 33, 34, 35, 36,  
37, 38, 39, 40, 41,  
42, 43 & 44  
53  
54  
Greg Latimer  
& Marva  
Coltman  
DD2020.0046 $6,500.00  
DD2020.0047 $3,600.00  
Section 30-36-4-W4 # 24, 32, 33 & 45  
Greg Latimer  
& Marva  
Coltman  
Section 30-36-4-W4 #3,4, 6, 7, 8, 14, 19,  
20, 21, 22, 23, 24,  
25, 26, 27, 28, 29,  
31, 32, 33, 34, 35,  
36, 37, 38, 39, 40,  
41, 42, 43, 44, 45,  
47  
12  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref. Applicant (s)  
Section 30  
File  
Claim  
Land  
Site Reference  
No.  
55  
Greg Latimer  
& Marva  
Coltman  
DD2020.0048 $6,152.00  
NE 30-36-4-W4  
a) refers to #15 &  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
SE 30-36-4-W4  
SW 30-36-4-W4  
SW 31-36-4-W4  
SE 31-36-4-W4  
#19  
b) refers to #14 &  
#24  
c) Refers to #3 &  
#22  
[14]  
In accordance with the Act, the Tribunal convened a Hearing on May 11, 2021 to May 13, 2021  
via videoconference, to address the matter of setting the rate of annual compensation as well as  
determining damage claims.  
[15]  
Greg Latimer and Marva Coltman testified under oath.  
[16]  
Robert Telford of Telford Land & Valuation Inc. (“Telford”), Trevor Sheehan of Canadian  
Resource Valuation Group (“Sheehan”), Malcolm Torpe of Surge Energy (“Torpe”) and Kelsey  
Molyneux (“Molyneux”) testified under oath on behalf of the Operator.  
[17] This decision addresses the section 27 and section 30 applications as well as costs under section 39  
of the Act.  
Factual Overview  
[18]  
[19]  
The following overview summarizes the relevant evidence in this hearing.  
The Lands are located adjacent to Sounding Lake in Special Area 4, approximately 16 miles  
northeast of the Village of Consort. The lands are designated Agricultural District (AG-1). The current use  
is for agriculture pursuits including hay, grazing and annual crop production.  
[20]  
The East side of the farm is a mix of native grass, upland trees and areas that have been broken in  
the past and are now tame pasture. The West side of the farm is cultivated land that is used for hay  
production and livestock grazing. As well, this land is used for winter feeding and calving.  
[21]  
A shop and barn, corrals, sheds and house trailer are located on L.S. 14 NW 30-36-4-W4.  
EXHIBITS FILED  
[22]  
The Exhibits are listed in Appendix A.  
PRELIMINARY MATTERS  
Withdrawal of SL2021.0028  
[23]  
During the proceedings, the Applicants withdrew the section 27 compensation request for  
13  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Reference #12 as it was found that the well 100/8-31-36-4 W4M was actually located on Reference #1.  
The request for Reference #1 was increased by $1,000 to reflect the additional well. These adjustments  
were accepted by the Operator without objection. It is noted the Operator’s written submissions include  
Reference #12 and no adjustment to Reference #1.  
[24]  
Who are the owners of the Lands?  
[25] Bennett submitted Form 8 Transfer of Land documents as evidence that Jean Latimer transferred  
The Application filed under SL2021.0028 is withdrawn and will not be considered by the Panel.  
her ownership of the SW 30-36-4-W4 and SE 30-36-4-W4 to Greg Latimer on September 1, 2018. The  
Certificate of Title for the SW 30-36-4-W4 has this land registered to Greg Latimer as of April 19, 2021.  
Bennett argued the transfer documents were fully executed so that Jean Latimer was no longer the owner  
of the lands effective September 1, 2018. There was no evidence presented that Greg Latimer had a  
registered interest in these lands prior to April 19, 2021.  
[26]  
Surge submitted that the transfer of lands is only effective at the time of registration, April 19, 2021  
pursuant to section 54 of the Land Titles Act which states:  
Effect of Registration  
54 references 2, 13, 16, 30 s these are the sites where there was no varying. registered every  
instrument becomes operative according to its tenor and intent, and on registration creates,  
transfers, surrenders, charges or discharges, as the case may be, the land or the estate or interest  
in the land or estate mentioned in the instrument.  
[27]  
The Land Titles Act is clear that a transfer becomes operative when the transferee has both taken a  
proper transfer of the land and registered it with the Registrar of Land Titles. Section 62(1) of the Land  
Titles Act states:  
Certificate as Evidence of Title  
62(1) Every certificate of title granted under this Act (except in case of fraud in which the owner  
has participated or colluded), so long as it remains in force and uncancelled under this Act, is  
conclusive proof in all courts as against Her Majesty and all persons whomsoever that the person  
named in the certificate is entitled to the land included in the certificate for the estate or interest  
specified in the certificate  
[28]  
The Panel finds that the owner(s) of land are those shown as owners on the Certificate of Title  
registered with the Registrar of Land Titles. The title to the SW 30-36-4-W4 was passed to Greg Latimer  
when the Transfer of Land was registered on April 19, 2021. The registered owners of the Lands and the  
dates of registration are as follows:  
Legal Description Landowner  
Registration Date Landowner  
Jean Latimer August 12, 2008  
Jean Latimer August 12, 2008  
Registration Date  
SE 30-36-4-W4  
SW 30-36-4-W4  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer  
G Latimer &  
M. Coltman  
April 19, 2021  
April 19, 2021  
Greg Latimer January 5, 2012  
NE 21-36-5-W4  
Greg Latimer January 5, 2012  
14  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Legal Description  
NE 30-36-4-W4  
SE 31-36-4-W4  
SW 31-36-4-W4  
Landowner  
Crown  
Occupant  
Gregory E. Latimer  
Gregory E. Latimer  
Gregory E. Latimer  
Crown  
Crown  
Should Applications SL2021.0039, SL2019.0105, SL2019.0089, SL2019.0090, SL2019.0088,  
SL2021.0012, SL2021.0076 and SL2021.0042 be dismissed?  
[29]  
On March 30, 2021, the Tribunal received a letter from counsel for the Operator stating that the  
Operator and Jean Latimer had reached agreement on the rates of annual compensation for each of eight  
surface leases (References 21, 47, 43,44, 42, 4, 40, & 22) located in the SE and SW 30-36-4-W4.  
[30]  
Exhibit 7 provided by the Operator’s counsel included copies of the Compensation Review Notice  
documents with agreement on the annual compensation, signed by Jean Elizabeth Latimer and Kelsey  
Molyneux for Surge Energy Inc. These agreements included clauses that, upon receipt of the signed letter,  
cheques would be forwarded for rental adjustments for the current period (Reference #’s 43, 44, 42, 4, 40  
& 22) or where the agreed rent was reduced (Reference #21), and a clause stating Surge would not seek  
reimbursement of the amount that was previously paid. No adjustment was required when the compensation  
remained the same (Reference #47).  
[31]  
The details of the eight signed agreements before the Panel are summarized in the following table.  
Ref. s27  
Application  
No.  
Legal  
Review Date  
Current  
Rent  
Agreed  
Rent  
Date Signed  
21  
47  
43  
44  
42  
SL2021.0039 102/08-30-36- June 15, 2020  
$3,200.00 $2,460.00 March 4, 2021  
$2,300.00 $2,300.00 March 4, 2021  
$2,200.00 $2,715.00 March 4, 2021  
$3,200.00 $3,315.00 March 4, 2021  
$2,800.00 $4,576.00 March 4, 2021  
4 W4M  
SL2019.0105 100/03-30-36- July 7, 2017  
4-W4  
SL2019.0089 1A0/4-30-36-  
4-W4  
March 12, 2017  
SL2019.0090 102/4-30-36-4- July 25, 2019  
W4  
SL2019.0088 100/4-30-36-4 July 7, 2017  
W4M, 1S0/4-  
30-36-4 W4M  
1C0/4-30-36-4  
W4M  
4
SL2021.0012 1C0/06-30-36- December 14,  
$2,300.00 $3.200.00 March 4, 2021  
4-W4  
2016  
40  
22  
SL2021.0076 102/5-30-36-4- August 3, 2016  
W4  
SL2021.0042 100/07-30-36- November 22,  
$1,800.00 $2,838.00 March 16,  
2021  
$2,459.00 $3,146.00 March 16,  
2021  
4-W4  
2016  
[32]  
The Operator submits the signed compensation reviews for the eight leases are valid because Mrs.  
Latimer owned the subject lands at the time the reviews were executed, and was even a co-applicant in the  
current proceeding. All of the agreements were executed by Jean Latimer while she was the registered  
15  
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.  
[33]  
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.  
[34]  
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.  
[35]  
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.  
[36]  
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.  
[37]  
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.  
[38]  
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.  
[39]  
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.  
16  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Should the Panel consider or give any weight to the oral testimony of Ms. Coltman?  
[40] On behalf of the Applicants, Ms. Marva Coltman gave evidence describing the farming operations,  
including the raising and sale of specialty goats, and how that enterprise was impacted by the activities of  
the Operator. However, Ms. Coltman did not make herself available for cross examination by the Operator  
or to answer questions from the Panel. The Panel sought submissions from the parties on how the hearing  
might proceed. Surge submitted no weight should be given to the testimony if the witness was not available  
for cross examination. The Applicants were aware of when cross examination was to take place yet offered  
no explanation to confirm when Ms. Coltman might be available.  
[41]  
The Panel determined the hearing would proceed without Ms. Coltman being available for cross  
examination. As well, the Panel determined that, without cross-examination of Ms. Coltman, the operator  
would not have a fair opportunity to contradict her statements. For that reason, her oral testimony in this  
hearing will not be considered by the Panel. The primary consideration is procedural fairness. Section 5 of  
the Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act, Chapter A-3, of Alberta requires that the operator be  
given an opportunity to contradict or explain facts or allegations in Ms. Coltman’s oral testimony.  
SECTION 27 MATTERS  
[42]  
As outlined in section 27(1), lessor means a party to a surface lease who is entitled to receive the  
compensation under a surface lease. As well, operator means an operator who is obligated to pay  
compensation under a surface lease to a lessor. Section 27(8) of the Surface Rights Act only permits  
“parties”, as defined under section 27(1), to make application to the Tribunal for proceedings to  
determine the rate of compensation .  
[43]  
Surge Energy Inc. acquired the subject surface leases on September 11, 2017. The Panel finds  
Surge Energy Ltd. is the Operator for each of the subject leases. The Panel is satisfied the Tribunal has  
jurisdiction to hear the applications of the following lessors:  
s27  
Legal  
Document  
Owner  
Occupant  
Lessor(s)  
Reference.  
Application  
No.  
1
SL2021.0009 100/7-31-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Crown  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
100/8-31-  
36-4 W4M  
2
3
SL2021.0010 100/3-31-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Crown  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
SL2021.0011 1D0/11-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Latimer &  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Marva  
Coltman  
Crown  
Coltman  
Greg  
Latimer  
5
SL2021.0014 100/4-31-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Greg  
Latimer  
and 4-31-36-  
4 W4M  
17  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
s27  
Legal  
Document  
Owner  
Occupant  
Lessor(s)  
Reference.  
Application  
No.  
6
SL2021.0017 104/12-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Latimer &  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Marva  
Coltman  
Surface Lease Greg  
Coltman  
Greg  
7
SL2021.0019 100/14-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Coltman  
Crown  
Coltman  
Greg  
Latimer  
8
9
SL2021.0020 100/10-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Greg  
Latimer  
SL2021.0021 100/6-31-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Crown  
Crown  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
10  
SL2021.0024 102/7-31-  
36-4 W4M,  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
104/7-31-  
36-4 W4M  
11  
13  
14  
SL2021.0026 104/4-31-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Crown  
Crown  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
SL2021.0029 102/6-31-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
SL2021.0030 1A0/14-30-  
36-4 W4M,  
Surface Lease Greg  
Latimer &  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
102/15-30-  
Marva  
36-4 W4M  
Coltman  
Coltman  
15  
SL2021.0032 105/4-31-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Crown  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
16  
17  
18  
19  
SL2021.0033 103/6-31-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Crown  
Crown  
Crown  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
SL2021.0034 104/6-31-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
SL2021.0035 107/4-31-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
SL2021.0036 1D0/13-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Latimer &  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Marva  
Coltman  
Coltman  
18  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
s27  
Legal  
Document  
Owner  
Occupant  
Lessor(s)  
Reference.  
Application  
No.  
20  
SL2021.0037 102/13-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Latimer &  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Marva  
Coltman  
Surface Lease Greg  
Latimer  
Coltman  
Greg  
Latimer  
23  
24  
SL2021.0045 100/5-30-  
36-4 W4M  
SL2021.0047 105/11-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Coltman  
Coltman  
25  
26  
SL2021.0049 102/6-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
SL2021.0051 1B2/12-30-  
36-4 W4  
Surface Lease Greg  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Coltman  
Coltman  
27  
28  
SL2021.0054 102/9-30-  
36-4 W4M  
SL2021.0055 103/14-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Surface Lease Greg  
Latimer &  
Crown  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Marva  
Coltman  
Coltman  
29  
SL2021.0056 100/15-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Crown  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
and 102/16-  
30-36-4  
W4M  
30  
31  
SL2021.0057 102/3-31-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Crown  
Crown  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
SL2021.0058 100/9-30-  
36-4-W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
& 100/16-  
30-36-4-  
W4M  
32  
33  
SL2021.0061 102/11-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Coltman  
Surface Lease Greg  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Coltman  
Greg  
SL2021.0063 100/11-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Coltman  
Coltman  
19  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
s27  
Legal  
Document  
Owner  
Occupant  
Lessor(s)  
Reference.  
Application  
No.  
34  
35  
SL2021.0064 103/15-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Crown  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
SL2021.0066 1B0/12-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Latimer &  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Marva  
Coltman  
Coltman  
36  
37  
38  
SL2021.0070 103/11-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Coltman  
Coltman  
SL2021.0071 1A0/13-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Coltman  
Coltman  
SL2021.0072 1D2/13-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Coltman  
Coltman  
39  
41  
SL2021.0074 102/10-30-  
36-4 W4M  
Consent of  
Occupant  
Crown  
Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
SL2021.0078 12-30-36-4  
W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Latimer &  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Marva  
Coltman  
Coltman  
45  
46  
SL2019.0097 NW ¼-30-  
36-4-W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Greg  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Latimer &  
Marva  
Coltman  
12-30-36-4  
W4M  
Coltman  
SL2019.0096 NE ¼-21-  
36-5-W4M  
Surface Lease Greg  
Latimer  
Greg  
Latimer  
1D0/10-21-  
36-5 W4M  
20  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
ISSUES  
[44]  
The Panel considered the following issues:  
1. What is the appropriate rate of annual compensation for each of the Surface Leases, as of the  
effective date of review?  
a) Does the evidence establish a pattern of dealings?  
b) If so, is there a cogent reason to depart from the pattern?  
2. If there is no pattern of dealings, what is the appropriate rate of compensation for each of the  
Surface Leases as regards:  
a) Loss of Use  
b) Adverse Effect  
3. Is interest payable and if so, at what rate?  
4. Are costs payable, and if so, in what amount and to whom?  
DECISION:  
[45] The Panel makes the following decisions:  
1. a) The evidence does establish a pattern of dealings that is representative of the  
general state of the industry in the surrounding area.  
1. b) There are cogent reasons to depart from the pattern of dealings as there are  
additional factors to consider in determining compensation for adverse effects of well  
sites on the subject lands.  
2. a) The annual rate of compensation for each of the following Surface Leases is varied  
as of the effective dates as follows:  
Ref s27 Application Effective Date Compensation prior to Nov 1,  
Compensation After Nov. 1,  
2019  
No.  
2019  
Aug. 30, 2019 to Aug. 29 2020  
Aug. 30 2020 to Aug. 29 2024  
August 30,  
2019  
1
SL2021.0009  
$2,250.00  
$2,250.00  
Sep. 16, 2016 to Sept. 15, 2020  
Sept 16, 2020 to Sept. 15, 2021  
September 16,  
2016  
3
5
SL2021.0011  
SL2021.0014  
$3,181.00  
$3,481.00  
Dec. 19 2016 to Dec 18 , 2019  
Dec. 19, 2019 to Dec. 18, 2021  
December 19,  
2016,  
$1,500.00  
$1,600.00  
Dec. 19, 2016 to Dec. 18 2019  
Dec. 19, 2019 to Dec. 18, 2021  
December 19,  
2016  
6
SL2021.0017  
$2,744.00  
$3,044.00  
21  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref s27 Application Effective Date Compensation prior to Nov 1,  
Compensation After Nov. 1,  
2019  
No.  
2019  
July 7, 2017 to July 6, 2020  
$3,398.00  
July 7, 2020 to July 6, 2022  
$3,698.00  
7
SL2021.0019  
SL2021.0020  
SL2021.0021  
SL2021.0024  
SL2021.0026  
SL2021.0030  
SL2021.0032  
SL2021.0034  
SL2021.0035  
SL2021.0036  
SL2021.0037  
SL2021.0045  
SL2021.0047  
SL2021.0049  
SL2021.0051  
July 7, 2017  
Oct. 24, 2017 to Oct 23, 2020  
$1,500.00  
Oct. 24, 2020 to Oct. 23 2022  
$1,600.00  
October 24,  
2017  
8
Dec 31. 2018 to Dec. 30, 2019  
$1,750.00  
Dec 31, 2019 to Dec 30, 2023  
$1,850.00  
December 31,  
2018  
9
Mar 11, 2019 to Mar 10, 2020  
$2,250.00  
Mar. 11, 2020 to Mar. 10, 2024  
$2,250.00  
March 11,  
2019  
10  
11  
14  
15  
17  
18  
19  
20  
23  
24  
25  
26  
July 12, 2019 to July 11, 2020  
$1,500.00  
July 12, 2020 to July 11, 2024  
$1,600.00  
July 12, 2019  
Mar. 12, 2017 to Mar. 11, 2020  
$2,550.00  
Mar. 12, 2020 to Mar. 11, 2022  
$2,650.00  
March 12,  
2017  
Sept. 21, 2019 to Sept.20, 2020  
$1,500.00  
Sept 21, 2020 to Sept. 20, 2024  
$1,600.00  
September 21,  
2019  
Nov. 30, 2019 to Nov. 29 2024  
$1,600.00  
November 30,  
2019  
Mar 8, 2020 to Mar 7, 2025  
$1,600  
March 8, 2020  
Mar. 12, 2017 to Mar. 11 2020  
$3,517.00  
Mar. 12, 2020 to Mar. 11, 2022  
$3,817.00  
March 12,  
2017  
Apr. 7, 2020 to Apr. 6, 2025  
$3,580.00  
April 7, 2020  
April 26, 2018  
Apr. 26, 2018 to Apr. 25, 2020  
$3,276.00  
Apr. 26, 2020 to Apr. 25, 2023  
$3,276.00  
Nov. 15, 2016 to Nov 14, 2019  
$3,118.00  
Nov. 15, 2019 to Nov.14, 2021  
$3,418.00  
November 15,  
2016  
Nov. 15, 2016 to Nov 14, 2019  
$3,220.00  
Nov. 15, 2019 to Nov.14, 2021  
$3,220.00  
November 15,  
2016  
Jan 8, 2017 to Jan 7, 2020  
$3,426.00  
Jan. 8, 2020 to Jan 7, 2022  
$3,726.00  
January 8,  
2017  
Dec. 21, 2020 to Dec. 20, 2025  
December 21,  
2020  
27  
SL2021.0054  
$1,500.00  
Jan. 8, 2020 to Jan 7, 2021  
$3,540.00  
Jan 8, 2016 to Jan 7, 2020  
$3,240.00  
January 8,  
2016  
28  
29  
31  
SL2021.0055  
SL2021.0056  
SL2021.0058  
Feb. 23, 2017 to Feb 22, 2020  
$1,500.00  
Feb 23, 2020 to Feb. 22, 2022  
$1,600.00  
February 23,  
2017  
Mar. 12, 2017 to Mar. 11 2020  
$1,500.00  
Mar. 12, 2020 to Mar. 11, 2022  
$1,600.00  
March 12,  
2017  
22  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref s27 Application Effective Date Compensation prior to Nov 1,  
Compensation After Nov. 1,  
2019  
No.  
2019  
Apr. 26, 2018 to Apr. 25, 2020  
$3,401.00  
Apr. 26, 2020 to Apr. 25, 2023  
$3,701.00  
32  
33  
34  
35  
36  
37  
38  
39  
41  
SL2021.0061  
April 26, 2018  
July 7, 2017  
July 7, 2017  
July 7, 2017 to July 6, 2020  
$3,125.00  
July 7, 2020 to July 6, 2022  
$3,425.00  
SL2021.0063  
SL2021.0064  
SL2021.0066  
SL2021.0070  
SL2021.0071  
SL2021.0072  
SL2021.0074  
SL2021.0078  
SL2019.0097  
July 7, 2017 to July 6, 2020  
$1,500.00  
July 7, 2020 to July 6, 2022  
$1,600.00  
Sept. 16, 2016 to Sept. 15, 2020  
$2,827.00  
Sept. 16, 2020 to Sept 15, 2021  
$3,127.00  
September 16,  
2016  
Nov. 19, 2016 to Nov.18, 2019  
$3,265.00  
Nov. 19, 2019 to Nov. 18, 2021  
$3,565.00  
November 19,  
2016  
Dec. 21, 2020 to Dec. 20, 2025  
$3,278.00  
December 21,  
2020  
Dec. 21, 2020 to Dec. 20 2025  
$3,411.00  
December 21,  
2020  
Feb 6, 2016 to Feb. 5, 2020  
$1,500.00  
Feb.6, 2020 to Feb. 5, 2021  
$1,600.00  
February 6,  
2016  
July 20, 2017 to July 19, 2020  
$2,303.00  
July 20, 2020 to July 19, 2022  
$2,603.00  
July 20, 2017  
Aug. 8, 2016 to Aug. 7, 2020  
$6,831.00  
Aug. 8, 2020 to Aug.7, 2021  
$7,131.00  
August 8,  
2016  
45  
46  
February 16,  
2016  
Feb. 16, 2016 to Feb. 15, 2020  
$1,230.00  
Feb. 16, 2020 to Feb. 15, 2021  
$1,230.00  
SL2019.0096  
March 29,  
2016  
Mar. 29, 2016 to Mar. 28, 2020  
$2,461.00  
Mar. 29, 2020 to Mar. 28, 2021  
$2,761.00  
2. b) The annual rate of compensation for each of the following Surface Leases is  
confirmed at the rate of compensation.  
Ref  
s27  
Application  
No.  
Effective Date  
Compensation prior to Nov 1,  
2019  
Compensation After Nov. 1,  
2019  
Apr. 26, 2019 to Apr. 25, 2020  
$1,500.00  
Apr 26, 2020 to Apr 25. 2024  
$1,500.00  
2
SL2021.0010 April 26, 2019  
July 25, 2019 to July 24, 2020  
July 25, 2020 to July 24, 2024  
13  
SL2021.0029 July 25, 2019  
September 21,  
$1,500.00  
Sept. 21, 2019 to Sept.20, 2020  
$1,500.00  
Sept 21, 2020 to Sept. 20, 2024  
16  
30  
SL2021.0033  
2019  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
Mar. 12, 2017 to Mar. 11 2020  
$1,500.00  
Mar. 12, 2020 to Mar. 11, 2022  
$1,500.00  
March 12,  
2017  
SL2021.0057  
23  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
3. No interest is payable.  
4. Costs are payable by the Operator to the Applicants and will be considered together with  
the costs for the s. 30 applications.  
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES:  
[46]  
The Operator’s position is that, based on the pattern of dealings evidence in the Telford review  
and the analysis of negotiated agreements, the appropriate rates of annual compensation for the surface  
leases, be determined as follows:  
a. Loss of Use:  
i. $350.00 per acre for cultivated/tame forage freehold lands; and  
ii. $300.00 per acre for pasture/native prairie freehold lands.  
b. Adverse Effect  
i. $2,100.00 for cultivated freeholds lands;  
ii. $700.00 to $3,000.00 for pasture/native prairie freeholds lands, broken down as  
follows: access road - $700.00, well sites/pad sites - $1,800.00, and the battery  
site - $3,000.00  
c. Consent of Occupant (Crown Lands)  
i. $1,500.00 per year  
d. Additional wellheads:  
i. $750.00 per year  
[47]  
The Applicants submit the cumulative effect of the Operator’s activities on the Latimer lands  
restrict farming and ranching activities to an unusual extent. Compensation for loss of use and adverse  
effect should be based on the impact the operator’s activities have on the actual farming operations. The  
livestock operation consists of a 90 head cow/calf enterprise along with 100 specialty goats. The lands  
support the livestock through the organic production of forage for hay and grazing as well as providing  
areas for winter feeding areas and spring calving. The goats are raised on the W1/2 30-36-4-W4 and much  
of this area has been fenced for the goats. The goats generate revenues through sales of both males and  
females. These revenues were suggested to contribute an additional $250.00 per acre, however this  
amount was not factored into the requested amounts for compensation.  
[48]  
The Applicants submit the lands including the Crown leases have a high water-table with crops  
being sub-irrigated which allows for achieving higher crop production levels. Field operations often  
include one cut of hay in the summer followed by grazing the regrowth well into the fall. It was further  
submitted that the land has achieved production of two round bales per acre valued at $150.00 per bale  
along with 90 days of grazing valued at $90.00 per acre for a total of $390.00 per acre.  
[49]  
The Applicants’ position with respect to adverse effect was that compensation should be based on  
a rate of $2,500.00 to reflect a normal lease site along with added consideration for the specific factors  
that cause issues with the farming operations on the lands. These factors include the proximity of well  
sites and the Battery site to the yard site and residence on NW 30-36-4-W4, the concentration of 50 lease  
sites on the lands, the presence of power poles to service lease sites, the fencing of lease sites which cause  
issues with gaining access to fields, and gates which are kept locked without the land owner having a key.  
24  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[50]  
The Applicants’ initial requested compensation for each Surface Lease is based on the following  
components:  
a) Loss of Use. Compensation of $350.00 per acre for Loss of Use on the total acres in each  
surface lease on both freehold and Crown land. This amount was based on the production  
capabilities of the land and existing comparable agreements with other operators on lands  
owned by the Applicants.  
b) Adverse Effect (AE) used a base AE factor of $2500.00 which is submitted to be reflective of  
a normal site not fenced where the landowner has use of most of the leased area.  
c) Power Poles - A rate of $150.00/pole was applied to poles located on the Latimer land to  
reflect power-related issues related to the Operator’s activities. The presence of numerous  
power poles off-lease are an obstacle to farm equipment and their operations.  
d) Fencing. The Applicants are seeking $500.00 if the lease is fenced as this contributes to  
increased travel time to access portions of land, increased stress on equipment and operators  
as well as creating cattle handling and safety issues. The fencing of leasing was done without  
consulting the Applicants and against their wishes. The fences have caused problems when  
maneuvering farm equipment, accessing fields and cattle handling. Fencing has also blocked  
access to the residence to the extent that another road had to be built.  
e) Cut-off/missed acres. The Applicants are claiming $350.00 per acre, the same as Loss of Use  
for those acres around leases where the Owner is not able to operate equipment to realize  
production. The Applicants have estimated the area impacted by not being able to maneuver  
farm equipment, including the harrow/packer and air seeder, around the fenced leases and in  
tight spots created by the fenced leases.  
f) Extra Wells. The Applicants are claiming $1,000.00 for each additional well on a lease site  
based on the pattern in the area.  
g) Home quarter. The Applicants are claiming $500.00 for those wells close enough to the  
residence on NW 30-36-4-W4 that they cause extra problems in the form of dust, noise,  
constant flaring and nuisance.  
h) H2S Gas. The Applicants are claiming an additional $500.00 to compensate for the danger  
and constant issue of the smell and having to report the issue to AER and follow up with  
AER personnel. The Applicants submit that sour gas smells emanate from many wells and the  
Battery Site.  
[51]  
The Applicants’ total compensation requests (rounded) along with calculations were submitted in  
the Applicants’ disclosure as follows:  
25  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref  
s27 Application  
No.  
Acres LO  
AE  
Poles Fence  
Acres  
Extra Wells/  
H2S  
Home  
1/4  
Total  
Comp  
U
Missed infrastructure  
1
2
3
5
SL2021.0009  
SL2021.0010  
SL2021.0011  
SL2021.0014  
4.88 $350 $2,500  
4.59 $350 $2,500  
2.23 $350 $2,500  
3.45 $350 $2,500  
$4,200.00  
$4,250.50  
$5,550.00  
$150  
$500  
$500  
2.245  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
0.957  
$250  
$4,800.00  
$3,9500.0  
0
6
SL2021.0017  
SL2021.0019  
SL2021.0020  
SL2021.0021  
SL2021.0024  
SL2021.0026  
SL2021.0029  
SL2021.0030  
SL2021.0032  
SL2021.0033  
SL2021.0034  
SL2021.0035  
SL2021.0036  
SL2021.0037  
SL2021.0045  
SL2021.0047  
SL2021.0049  
SL2021.0051  
SL2021.0054  
SL2021.0055  
SL2021.0056  
SL2021.0057  
SL2021.0058  
SL2021.0061  
SL2021.0063  
SL2021.0064  
SL2021.0066  
SL2021.0070  
SL2021.0071  
SL2021.0072  
SL2021.0074  
SL2021.0078  
1.84 $350 $2,500  
2.85 $350 $2,500  
2.79 $350 $2,500  
2.66 $350 $2,500  
2.78 $350 $2,500  
2.29 $350 $2,500  
2.87 $350 $2,500  
1.99 $350 $2,500  
3.87 $350 $2,500  
2.38 $350 $2,500  
1.51 $350 $2,500  
3.30 $350 $2,500  
3.19 $350 $2,500  
3.37 $350 $2,500  
3.36 $350 $2,500  
2.05 $350 $2,500  
3.20 $350 $2,500  
2.93 $350 $2,500  
$500  
$500  
0.847  
4.024  
3.82  
7
$6,400.00  
$5,300.00  
$4,200.00  
$4,900.00  
$4,800.00  
$3,500.00  
$6,150.00  
$4,800.00  
$3,450.00  
$3,850.00  
$4,700.00  
$5,350.00  
$4,800.00  
$4,550.00  
$5,100.00  
$3,700.00  
$5,750.00  
$4,900.00  
$4,500.00  
$4,700.00  
$3,907.00  
$4,500.00  
$4,851.00  
$4,150.00  
$3,900.00  
$4,200.00  
$5,681.40  
$4,250.00  
$4,800.00  
$5,100.00  
8
$500  
9
$500  
0.118  
$250  
10  
11  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
23  
24  
25  
26  
27  
28  
29  
30  
31  
32  
33  
34  
35  
36  
37  
38  
39  
41  
$450  
$1,000  
$300  
$500  
2.045  
$500  
$500  
1.105  
0.82  
$1,000  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$150  
$300  
0.341  
0.062  
1.514  
0.679  
0.872  
0.313  
1.158  
0.142  
2.068  
0.463  
0.602  
1.786  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$300  
$750  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
2.99 $350 $2,500 $1,200  
2.40 $350 $2,500  
3.81 $350 $2,500  
4.02 $350 $2,500  
2.81 $350 $2,500  
2.86 $350 $2,500  
2.07 $350 $2,500  
2.15 $350 $2,500  
1.22 $350 $2,000  
2.47 $350 $2,500  
$500  
$250  
$250  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
2.216  
1.00  
$500  
$250  
0.54  
0.535  
0.982  
2.334  
0.397  
0.254  
3.547  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$250  
$500  
1.65 $350 $2,500  
2.03 $350 $2,500  
2.40 $350 $2,500  
$300  
$500  
0.58 $350 $2,500  
$18,00  
$300  
$2,00  
0
$3,003.00  
$36,040.9  
5
45  
46  
SL2019.0097  
SL2019.0096  
7.23 $350  
0
2.887  
$5,000  
$2,500 $5,000  
4.10 $350 $2,500  
$3,935.00  
26  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
REASONS FOR DECISION  
1. What is an appropriate rate of annual compensation?  
a. Does the evidence establish a pattern of dealings?  
[52]  
It is the Tribunal’s practice to base compensation on a pattern of dealings when one is established  
on the evidence unless there are cogent reasons for doing otherwise. This approach is based on the  
underlying premise that the marketplace is usually the best determinant of fair and reasonable rates of  
compensation, and is consistent with the court’s decision in Livingston v. Siebens Oil & Gas Ltd (1978), 8  
A.R. 439 (C.A.) and now used routinely by the Court and Tribunal. Likewise, Imperial Oil Resources Ltd.  
v. 826167 Alberta Inc. 2007 ABCA 131, at para 21, articulated the principle for finding a pattern of dealings,  
contemplating “comparable” patterns of dealings, in terms of the rights granted, the type of land and  
proximity, date, acreage, and the nature of the parties. This court decision is binding upon the Tribunal.  
[53]  
The Telford Negotiated Agreement Review of similar dispositions and facilities was undertaken to  
determine whether there are similar negotiated agreements in the area indicative of all-inclusive rates of  
compensation that landowners have found acceptable for the rights granted. The time frame for this review  
was from January 2015 to March 2021. The search area was set to be within one township of the subject  
lands.  
[54]  
The key factors considered in determining similar agreements were:  
i. The rights granted  
ii. The type of land  
iii. The type of facilities and equipment  
iv. Proximity  
v. Effective date  
vi. Acreage  
vii. The nature of the parties  
viii.The general condition of the industry  
[55]  
Nine companies were contacted with 138 agreements from eight operators identified for further  
analysis. As data provided by the companies included locations outside the initial search area, these  
agreements were included in the analysis. Interviews were conducted to determine the breakdown of the  
components of annual compensation in terms of loss of use, adverse effect and additional well head  
compensations. Of note is that the Operator, Surge, was a party to 65 of the identified agreements.  
[56]  
Twenty-eight lease agreements on freehold cultivated lands established a range of $241.00 to  
$350.00 per acre for loss of use. 71% of the agreements were at $350.00 per acre, which was determined  
to be representative of rates paid by companies and accepted by landowners. The compensation for adverse  
effect ranged from $870.00 to $2,550.00 per year. The mean of $2,107.00 (rounded to $2,100) was  
determined to be applicable to the subject lands based on their use and topography.  
[57]  
Sixty-nine agreements on freehold pasture/native prairie established a range of $205.00 per acre to  
$350.00 per acre for loss of use, along with a mean of $282.00 per acres and a median of $275.00 per acre.  
As the majority (87%) of the agreements indicated a value of $300.00 per acre or less, the analysis  
determined $300.00 per acre to be representative of the compensation that operators and landowners found  
to be acceptable. Compensation for adverse effect ranged from $378.00 to $3,000.00 with a mean of  
$1,785.00 and a median of $1,800.00. The analysis noted that the higher end of the range was associated  
with battery sites and pad sites while the lower end was associated with access roads, valve site risers and  
well sites. The final determinations of adverse effects on pasture/native prairie lands, was:  
27  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
a. Battery Site  
b. Access Road  
c. Wellsite/pad site  
$3,000.00  
$700.00  
$1,800.00  
[58]  
The analysis of 38 consent of occupant agreements determined the annual compensation accepted  
by occupants and Operators on leased lands to be in a range of $800.00 to $1,800.00 per year with a mean  
of $1,563.00 and a median of $1,300.00. With the majority of these agreements being between $1,300.00  
and $1,500.00 per year, the all-inclusive rate of $1,500.00, was determined to best capture the actions of  
operators and occupants for similar dispositions in the vicinity.  
[59]  
The review included 21 pad site/amendment agreements. Additional compensation for extra well  
heads ranged from $2500.00 to $750.00 with a mean of $640.00 and a median of $750.00. As the majority  
of agreements were consistent at $750.00 this rate was determined to be the appropriate compensation for  
additional infrastructure on freehold subject lands, provided they are actively producing.  
[60]  
The analysis led to the following estimates of annual compensation for each of the dispositions:  
Pasture/ Native Prairie Freehold Lands  
Loss of Use  
$300.00 per acre  
Adverse Effect  
a) Battery Site  
b) Access Road Extensions and Risers  
c) Well sites/Pad sites  
$3,000.00 per year  
$700.00 per year  
$1,800.00 per year  
Cultivated Freehold Lands  
Loss of Use  
$350.00 per acre  
Adverse Effect  
$2,100.00 per year  
Additional Well Head Compensation $750.00 per additional well head per year  
Consent of Occupant Compensation (Crown-Special Areas)  
Annual Consent Compensation $1,500.00 per year  
[61]  
Telford estimated compensations for each site based on the review and analysis of the negotiated  
agreements. These are summarized as follows:  
Ref.  
s27  
Application  
No.  
Acres  
Effective  
Date  
Land Use  
Loss of  
Use  
Adverse  
Effect  
Additional  
Well heads  
Total  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
1
SL2021.0009  
4.88  
30-Aug-19  
$1,500.00  
2
3
SL2021.0010  
SL2021.0011  
4.59  
2.23  
26-Apr-19  
16-Sep-16  
Grazing  
$1,500.00  
$2,880.50  
Cultivated  
Crown  
$350.00  
$2,100.00  
5
SL2021.0014  
3.45  
14-Dec-16  
Grazing  
$1,500.00  
28  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref.  
s27  
Application  
No.  
Acres  
Effective  
Date  
Land Use  
Loss of  
Use  
Adverse  
Effect  
Additional  
Well heads  
Total  
6
7
SL2021.0017  
SL2021.0019  
1.84  
2.85  
19-Dec-16  
07-Jul-17  
Cultivated  
$350.00  
$350.00  
$2,100.00  
$2,100.00  
$2,744.00  
$3,097.50  
Cultivated  
Crown  
8
SL2021.0020  
SL2021.0021  
SL2021.0024  
SL2021.0026  
SL2021.0029  
SL2021.0030  
SL2021.0032  
SL2021.0033  
SL2021.0034  
2.79  
2.66  
2.78  
2.29  
2.87  
1.99  
3.87  
2.38  
1.51  
24-Oct-17  
31-Dec-18  
11-Mar-19  
12-Jul-19  
25-Jul-19  
12-Mar-17  
21-Sep-19  
21-Sep-19  
30-Nov-19  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
$1,500.00  
9
10  
11  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
18  
19  
20  
23  
24  
25  
26  
SL2021.0035  
SL2021.0036  
SL2021.0037  
SL2021.0045  
SL2021.0047  
SL2021.0049  
SL2021.0051  
3.30  
3.19  
3.37  
3.36  
2.05  
3.20  
2.93  
08-Mar-20  
12-Mar-17  
07-Apr-20  
26-Apr-18  
15-Nov-16  
15-Nov-16  
08-Jan-17  
Grazing  
$1,500.00  
$3,216.50  
$3,279.50  
$3,276.00  
$2,817.50  
$3,220.00  
$3,125.50  
Cultivated  
Cultivated  
Cultivated  
Cultivated  
Cultivated  
$350.00  
$350.00  
$350.00  
$350.00  
$350.00  
$350.00  
$2,100.00  
$2,100.00  
$2,100.00  
$2,100.00  
$2,100.00  
$2,100.00  
Cultivated  
Crown  
27  
28  
29  
SL2021.0054  
SL2021.0055  
SL2021.0056  
2.99  
2.40  
3.81  
21-Dec-20  
08-Jan-16  
23-Feb-17  
Grazing  
$1,500.00  
$2,940.00  
$2,943.00  
Cultivated  
$350.00  
$300.00  
$2,100.00  
$1,800.00  
Pasture  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
30  
SL2021.0057  
4.02  
12-Mar-17  
$1,500.00  
31  
32  
33  
SL2021.0058  
SL2021.0061  
SL2021.0063  
2.81  
2.86  
2.07  
12-Mar-17  
26-Apr-18  
07-Jul-17  
$1,500.00  
$3,101.00  
$2,824.50  
Cultivated  
$350.00  
$350.00  
$2,100.00  
$2,100.00  
Cultivated  
Crown  
34  
35  
36  
37  
38  
SL2021.0064  
SL2021.0066  
SL2021.0070  
SL2021.0071  
SL2021.0072  
2.15  
1.22  
2.47  
1.65  
2.03  
07-Jul-17  
16-Sep-16  
19-Nov-16  
21-Dec-20  
21-Dec-20  
Grazing  
$1,500.00  
$2,527.00  
$2,964.50  
$1,277.50  
$2,810.50  
Cultivated  
Cultivated  
Cultivated  
$350.00  
$350.00  
$350.00  
$350.00  
$2,100.00  
$2,100.00  
$700.00  
Cultivated  
Crown  
$2,100.00  
39  
SL2021.0074  
2.40  
06-Feb-16  
Grazing  
$1,500.00  
29  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref.  
s27  
Application  
No.  
Acres  
Effective  
Date  
Land Use  
Loss of  
Use  
Adverse  
Effect  
Additional  
Well heads  
Total  
41  
45  
46  
SL2021.0078  
SL2019.0097  
0.58  
20-Jul-17  
Cultivated  
$350.00  
$700.00  
$903.00  
7.23  
4.10  
08-Aug-16  
NE 21  
February  
16, 2016  
SE 21  
Cultivated  
Pasture  
$350.00  
$300.00  
$3,000.00  
$1,800.00  
$5,530.50  
$3,030.00  
SL2019.0096  
1.03  
Cultivated  
$350.00  
$700.00  
$1,060.50  
March 29,  
2016  
Tribunal Analysis  
[62] The Panel examined the Operator’s negotiated lease agreements (the “Operator’s Comparables”).  
All were within two townships or a 12-mile proximity of the subject parcels, and the Panel found this  
distance to be reasonable as surface leases within this distance are more likely to be similar in  
climate/topography/soil than leases further in distance. As well, the comparable leases were similar to the  
subject leases in effective date of review (2016 to 2021) and type of agreement (lease, consent of occupant)  
although acreages varied from (8.83 to 0.46 acres).  
[63]  
Bennett argued that the Negotiated Agreements Review analysis was deficient by not providing  
sufficient information on the following:  
The nature of the parties and negotiations  
The size, configuration, and location and type of the comparable sites.  
The presence of access roads and their nature, including length and whether they are low or  
high profile.  
The nature of the land and its use, the type of crops grown, rotation and expected returns.  
Whether any of the comparable sites were sub-irrigated.  
Whether any of the sites were used for calving or winter-feeding operations.  
Whether factors such as noise, odor, weeds and frequency of site visits, were an  
inconvenience to landowners.  
The number of sites in the region when it was acknowledged there were far more than 2,000  
in the local area.  
Whether sites were active or inactive.  
No photos were provided to compare well sites with subject sites.  
Information on why various sites were excluded from the analysis including Reference #5  
which had Consent of Occupant at $1,900.00 annually and Reference #27 with Consent of  
Occupant at $1,800.00 annually.  
An explanation is missing for why an adjacent Battery Site across the road from Reference  
42 (SW 30) was not considered in the analysis.  
It was noted that all 138 comparables were non-home quarters with little comparability to the  
subject well sites.  
[64]  
Bennett further argued that the Negotiated Agreements Review analysis did not include sufficient  
information to determine whether the final estimates for loss of use and adverse effect reflect the actual  
circumstances of how the high concentration of surface leases and boundary fencing were impacting the  
30  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
farm operations. As well, the comparable agreements only include surface leases on non-home quarter  
sections.  
[65]  
Bennett also argued there are factors which support a deviance to the pattern of dealings  
presented by Surge. High water tables contribute to higher levels of production, which make the Latimer  
lands distinctly different from other lands in the pattern evidence. As well, the Latimer lands are used  
intensively for haying followed by grazing then winter feeding. These production practices are distinct  
from most landowners in the area who limit their use of the land to either tame or native pasture.  
[66]  
The Applicants provided seven comparable lease agreements going back to 2012. The Applicants  
were a party to these agreements, which established a range of $300.00 to $350.00 per acre for loss of use  
and $2,316.00 to $4,197.00 for adverse effect on pad sites and $3,929.00 for a battery site.  
[67]  
The Applicants argued these comparable leases should be considered as additional evidence of  
agreements that are more reflective of the unique capabilities of the land and the different operating  
circumstances on the Latimer lands.  
[68]  
Bennett also noted that nine of the Negotiated Agreements included in the Operator’s pattern  
evidence were the Compensation Review agreements executed by Jean Latimer in March 20211.  
[69]  
The Operator argued the methodology and analysis employed by Telford accords with the clear  
criteria articulated by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Imperial. A key component of the methodology was  
identifying negotiated agreements with similar effective dates.  
[70]  
The Operator further argued the evidence provided in the Negotiated Agreement Review was the  
more reliable POD evidence while the comparable leases provided by the Applicants were limited in  
number and were for negotiations outside of the relevant effective dates.  
[71]  
The Panel finds the Lessor’s seven comparable agreements do not establish a general state of  
agreements between landowners with agricultural operations and industry with energy operations. These  
agreements were negotiated prior to the relevant range of effective dates for the subject surface leases.  
[72]  
The Panel finds the all-inclusive rates of compensation in the Operator’s 138 agreements are a  
general indication of agreements between landowners with agricultural operations and operators in the  
surrounding area.  
Is There A Cogent Reason to Depart from The Pattern?  
[73]  
The Panel finds there are cogent reasons to depart from the Operator’s pattern evidence. The  
Negotiated Agreement Review does not include surface leases located on home quarter sections. As well,  
there is no evidence the comparable agreements include lands with a high concentration of surface leases  
and boundary fencing similar to that of the Lessors.  
[74]  
The Panel finds that NW 30-36-4-W4 is a home quarter. The yard site with the shop, livestock  
facilities and house trailer are in plain sight in the photographic evidence submitted by both the Applicants  
and the Operator. The Panel is persuaded these facilities serve as a residence for one of the owners of the  
land. Accordingly, the Panel finds there is a clear distinction between the pattern evidence, in which all of  
1 One addition agreement for an access road was included in addition to the eight compensation review agreements  
executed by Jean Latimer in March 2021 noted previously in paragraph 22.  
31  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
the 138 comparable leases are located on non-home quarters, and the actual circumstances of the surface  
leases proximate to the farm yard and residence located on NW 30-36-4-W4.  
[75]  
The compensation for adverse effect established in the Operator’s pattern evidence does not reflect  
the noise nuisance and inconvenience created by surface leases in proximity to a yard site and residence.  
The Panel accepts the Applicants’ claim that surface leases with Reference Nos. 3, 7, 14, 19, 24, 26, 28,  
32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38 & 45 located on NW 30-36-W4 require consideration for the adverse effect of the  
noise, nuisance and inconvenience imposed on the nearby yard site and residence.  
[76]  
The Applicants submit the Operator began building boundary fences in November 2019. The fences  
have created obstacles causing increased distance and travel time when moving equipment, along with  
greater turning and maneuvering and increased stress on equipment. The Panel finds surface leases with  
Reference Nos. 3, 5 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31-39, 41 & 45 require consideration  
of the impact the fences are likely to have on the farm operations.  
What Rate of Compensation is supported by the evidence?  
[77]  
When there is a cogent reason to depart from an established pattern, the Panel may consider the  
negotiated rates that exist in comparable leases, an empirical analysis of compensation, or a combination  
of comparable and empirical approaches, in determining the losses experienced by the applicants specific  
to each of the leases. Both the Applicants and the Operator provided evidence related to the comparable  
leases and an empirical analysis of losses.  
[78]  
The Panel, in considering other possible approaches to determining compensation based on the  
evidence available, refers to section 27(1)(d) of the Act, which stipulates that the amount of compensation  
payable on an annual basis under a surface lease is governed by s. 25(1)(c) and s. 25(1)(d).  
Loss of Use – s. 25(1)(c) of the Act  
[79]  
Section 25(1) of the Act permits the Tribunal to consider compensation based on the loss of use of  
a Landowner or occupant of an area granted to the operator.  
[80]  
The Applicants request $350.00 per acre for loss of use of cultivated land on both Freehold and  
Crown lands. They submitted that most of the Crown land had been broken at some point and it is not  
native grass. Further, if the Freehold land and the Crown land both produce the same type and quantity of  
forage, then the loss of use compensation should be the same.  
[81]  
The Applicants further submitted that the $350.00 claim for loss of use is reasonable given the  
high water table with the lands being sub-irrigated, which supports greater levels of crop production than  
what is suggested by the soil classification.  
[82]  
The Applicants request $300.00 per acre loss of use compensation for pasture on both Freehold  
and Crown land when the lease site is fenced. The Applicants submit that they are denied the full use of  
pasture acres when a lease site is fenced.  
[83]  
The Applicants requested $1,800.00 for unfenced lease sites on Crown land. This is based on  
what they submit another Operator is already paying the Applicants on two Crown Leases.  
[84]  
The Applicants’ request for compensation includes amounts claimed for missed acres for freehold  
lands with Reference Nos. 3, 6, 7, 19-26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35-38 & 45. These amounts are determined by  
valuing acres around fenced leases that cannot be farmed, at the same rate as the compensation for loss of  
use of the leased area ($350.00 per acre). The Applicants have relied on their experience operating  
32  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
equipment around the individual lease sites to estimate the missed acres.  
[85]  
The Operator provided an Estimate of Annual Compensation Report prepared by Telford to support  
its determination of empirical losses. Telford submitted that the subject dispositions were photographed  
and inspected on March 18, 2021. As well, the subject properties were reviewed by Aerial Photographs  
obtained from Abadata and Google Earth. Secondary agricultural data was obtained from Alberta  
Agriculture and Forestry (AAF), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Special Areas Board and  
Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC).  
[86]  
Telford’s Estimate of Annual Compensation report included an overview of the subject lands  
including soil classification, annual precipitation and frost-free days as well as descriptions of each surface  
lease. This report relied on the secondary data to arrive at rates of loss for grazing on native pasture lands,  
tame forage on lease lands, tame forage on freehold lands and annually cultivated crops.  
[87]  
Telford identified Consent of Occupant leases (Reference Nos. 1, 2, 10, 13, 27, 29, 31 & 46) with  
native hay and with tame forage (Reference Nos. 5, 8, 9, 11, 14-18, 30, 34 & 39).  
[88]  
Telford and Sheehan submitted that 14 sites (References 1, 2, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21, 27, 29, 31, 43, 46,  
& 47) were native pasture for which sustainable stocking rates would range from 45 acres per animal unit  
to 70 acres per animal unit. When converted to Animal Unit Months (AUM) per acre, the range became  
0.17 AUM/acre to 0.27 AUM per acre. Data from the 2020 Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture Land  
Lease Survey provided a value of $27.00 per AUM. At $30.00 per AUM the native pasture was determined  
to have a loss of use based on livestock grazing of $5.10 to $8.10 per acre2.  
[89]  
Telford testified that tame forage on lease land (References 5, 8, 9, 11, 14-18, 30, 34 & 39) had  
allowable stocking rates of 32 acre per AUM to 40 acres per AUM. When converted to AUM per acre the  
range was 0.30 to 0.37 AUM/acre. At $30 per AUM, the loss of use based on livestock grazing of tame  
forage was determined to be in the range of $9.00 to $11.00 per acre3.  
[90]  
Telford also testified that hay production on lease land would, according to Special Areas  
Disposition Regulation AR 137/2001, be limited to three tons per each head of livestock authorized in  
accordance with the carrying capacity. Accordingly, the hay production was determined to be in the range  
of 0.068 to 0.085 tonnes per acre. Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) estimates that mixed  
hay prices for the Central Region of Alberta ranged from $92.00 per tonne to $198.00 per tonne over the  
period of 2016 to 2020. The median value of $130.00 per tonne was used to estimate the loss of use based  
on hay production, and established the range of $8.84 to $11.05 per acre.  
[91]  
Telford testified that stocking rates on freehold land (References 3, 4, 6, 7, 19, 20, 22-26, 28, 32,  
33, 35-38, 40-42, 44 & 45) are likely to be greater than on leased land. Based on published Alberta  
Agriculture and Forestry (AAF) stocking rates and assuming annual precipitation of 10-14 inches, the  
potential stocking rages were determined to be in the range of 0.40 AUM per acre to 0.60 AUM per acre.  
At $30.00 per AUM the loss of use, based on livestock grazing of this forage, was determined to be in the  
range of $12.00 to $18.00 per acre4.  
[92]  
Telford also estimated likely hay production on freehold lands (References 3, 4, 6, 7, 19, 20, 22-  
26, 28, 32, 33, 35-38, 40-42, 44 & 45). Based on the soil classification, a review of historical aerial  
photography and on-site inspection, a reasonable hay yield was estimated to be in the range of 0.25 to 0.50  
2 (0.17 – 0.27 AUM per acre) * $30 per AUM  
3 (0..0 – 0.37 AUM per acre)* $30 per AUM  
4 (0.40 – 0.60 AUM per acre)* $30 per AUM  
33  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
tonnes per acre. Applying the AFSC hay price of $130.00 per tonne led to a range of $32.50 per acre to  
$65.00 per acre.  
[93]  
Telford also estimated the loss of use based on producing cultivated crops. Statistical data from  
AFSC, AAF and Canfax was used to establish a rotation of Feed Barley, Canola, Canadian Western Red  
Spring Wheat (CWRS) and Oats. An assumption was made that a 5-year rotation would include three wheat  
crops and two barley crops. Crop input data was obtained from AAF data for the Dark Brown Soil zone.  
This resulted in an average loss of use based on gross revenues of $283.75 and, after allowing for input  
costs, net returns of $181.35 per acre.  
[94]  
Telford and Sheehan undertook an analysis to determine the loss of use which the Applicants  
attributed to the fencing limiting access to, or otherwise impacting, off-lease areas. This assessment relied  
on aerial and ground measures to determine missed acres before and after the lease sites were fenced, and  
is summarized in a table similar to the following:  
Acres Impacted by  
Fencing  
Total Loss of Use  
LOU $/  
Acre  
Ref s27 File No.  
Effective  
Date  
Land Use  
Acres  
Prior to  
Fencing  
After  
Fencing  
Prior to  
Fencing  
After  
Fencing  
August 30, Native  
2019  
Pasture  
(Lease)  
Native  
Pasture  
(Lease)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Lease)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
SL2021.0009  
SL2021.0010  
SL2021.0011  
SL2021.0014  
SL2021.0017  
SL2021.0019  
SL2021.0020  
SL2021.0021  
4.88  
4.59  
2.23  
3.45  
1.84  
2.85  
2.79  
2.66  
2.78  
2.29  
0.64  
0.97  
0.71  
1.00  
0.02  
0.39  
0.35  
0.40  
0.29  
0.13  
0.64  
0.97  
2.2  
$8.10  
$8.10  
$5.00  
$8.00  
$46.00  
$11.00  
$1.00  
$25.00  
$4.00  
$4.00  
$2.00  
$1.00  
$5.00  
$8.00  
April 26,  
2019  
September  
16, 2016  
$65.00  
$11.10  
$65.00  
$65.00  
$11.10  
$11.10  
$8.10  
$143.00  
$32.00  
$120.00  
$183.00  
$28.00  
$30.00  
$2.00  
December  
19, 2016  
2.85  
1.84  
2.81  
2.53  
2.66  
0.29  
2.38  
December  
19, 2016  
July 7,  
2017  
October 24, Tame  
2017  
Forage  
(Lease)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Lease)  
Native  
Pasture  
(Lease)  
Tame  
December  
31, 2018  
March 11,  
2019  
10 SL2021.0024  
11 SL2021.0026  
July 12,  
2019  
Forage  
(Lease)  
$11.10  
$26.00  
34  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Acres Impacted by  
Fencing  
Total Loss of Use  
LOU $/  
Acre  
Ref s27 File No.  
Effective  
Land Use  
Acres  
Prior to  
After  
Prior to  
Fencing  
After  
Fencing  
Date  
Fencing  
Fencing  
July 25,  
2019  
Native  
Pasture  
(Lease)  
Native  
Pasture  
(Lease)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Lease)  
Native  
Pasture  
(Lease)  
Tame  
13 SL2021.0029  
14 SL2021.0030  
2.87  
1.99  
0.28  
0.28  
1.99  
$8.10  
$2.00  
$1.00  
$2.00  
March 12,  
2017  
0.12  
$11.10  
$22.00  
September  
21, 2019  
15 SL2021.0032  
16 SL2021.0033  
3.87  
1.70  
0.68  
2.38  
0.76  
0.03  
0.00  
3.32  
0.03  
0.68  
$11.10  
$1.10  
$11.10  
$8.00  
$0.24  
$37.00  
$8.00  
September  
21, 2019  
Forage  
(Lease)  
Native  
Pasture  
(Lease)  
Tame  
17 SL2021.0034  
November  
30, 2019  
0.60  
0.91  
1.51  
0.00  
0.24  
0.00  
0.91  
$8.1  
$ 11.10  
$3.00  
$10.00  
Forage  
(Lease)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Lease)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Native  
Pasture  
(Lease)  
Tame  
March 8,  
2020  
18 SL2021.0035  
19 SL2021.0036  
20 SL2021.0037  
23 SL2021.0045  
3.30  
3.19  
3.37  
3.36  
0.35  
0.51  
0.43  
0.40  
3.23  
2.87  
3.11  
0.40  
$11.10  
$65.00  
$65.00  
$65.00  
$4.00  
$33.00  
$28.00  
$26.00  
$36.00  
$187.00  
$202.00  
$26.00  
March 12,  
2017  
April 7,  
2020  
April 26,  
2018  
November  
15, 2016  
24 SL2021.0047  
25 SL2021.0049  
2.05  
3.20  
0.44  
0.25  
2.05  
0.25  
$65.00  
$65.00  
$29.00  
$16.00  
$133.00  
$16.00  
November  
15, 2016  
January 8,  
2017  
26 SL2021.0051  
27 SL2021.0054  
28 SL2021.0055  
29 SL2021.0056  
2.93  
2.99  
2.40  
3.81  
0.19  
0.43  
0.31  
0.78  
2.93  
0.43  
2.40  
2.81  
$65.00  
$8.10  
$12.00  
$3.00  
$190.00  
$3.00  
December  
21, 2020  
January 8,  
2016  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Native  
Pasture  
(Lease)  
$65.00  
$8.10  
$20.00  
$6.00  
$156.00  
$23.00  
February  
23, 2017  
35  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Acres Impacted by  
Fencing  
Total Loss of Use  
LOU $/  
Acre  
Ref s27 File No.  
30 SL2021.0057  
31 SL2021.0058  
32 SL2021.0061  
33 SL2021.0063  
34 SL2021.0064  
35 SL2021.0066  
Effective  
Date  
Land Use  
Acres  
4.02  
2.81  
2.86  
2.07  
2.15  
1.22  
Prior to  
After  
Prior to  
Fencing  
After  
Fencing  
Fencing  
Fencing  
Tame  
March 12,  
2017  
Forage  
(Lease)  
Native  
Pasture  
(Lease)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Lease)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Lease)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Tame  
Forage  
(Freehold)  
Native  
0.03  
0.03  
0.00  
2.86  
2.07  
2.15  
1.22  
$11.10  
$8.10  
$0.00  
$0.00  
$45.00  
$32.00  
$1.00  
$0.00  
$0.33  
$0.00  
March 12,  
2017  
0.00  
0.69  
0.49  
0.05  
0.00  
April 26,  
2018  
$65.00  
$65.00  
$11.10  
$65.00  
$186.00  
$135.00  
$24.00  
$79.00  
July 7,  
2017  
July 7,  
2017  
September  
16, 2016  
November  
19, 2019  
36 SL2021.0070  
37 SL2021.0071  
2.47  
1.65  
0.36  
0.15  
2.41  
1.65  
$65.00  
$65.00  
$23.00  
$10.00  
$157.00  
$107.00  
December  
21, 2020  
38 SL2021.0072  
39 SL2021.0074  
41 SL2021.0078  
45 SL2019.0097  
46 SL2019.0096  
December  
21, 2020  
2.03  
2.40  
0.58  
7.23  
0.16  
0.05  
0.01  
7.23  
0.00  
2.03  
2.40  
0.21  
7.23  
0.00  
$65.00  
$11.10  
$65.00  
$65.00  
$8.10  
$10.00  
$1.00  
$132.00  
$27.00  
$14.00  
$470.00  
$0.00  
February  
6, 2016  
July 20,  
2017  
$1.00  
August 8,  
2016  
$470.00  
$0.00  
NE 21:  
February  
16, 2016  
SE 21:  
4.63  
0.50  
5.13  
Pasture  
Cultivated  
March 29,  
2016  
[95]  
The Operator argued that there is minimal backup information provided by the Applicants to  
substantiate their estimates for loss of use. As well, the production estimates are overstated, given the  
observed condition of the forage on the lands, and the allowable stocking rate and use of hay on Crown  
leases controlled by the Special Areas Board. The Operator further submits that the Applicants’ production  
estimates for forages on Crown leased lands exceed the maximum allowable amounts.  
[96]  
The Operator argues that the production practice of producing hay and grazing capacity from land  
36  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
in the same growing season is not sustainable over the long run. Further, the Operator argues that the  
Applicants’ suggested hay price of $220.00 per tonne is considerably higher than prices indicated for hay  
purchases in the area that suggested an average in the range of $130.00 per tonne.  
Tribunal Analysis  
[97]  
The Panel is persuaded by the evidence that the rate of $350.00 per acre is appropriate for loss of  
use on cultivated freehold lands (References 3, 6, 7, 19, 20, 23-26, 28, 32, 33, 35-38, 41, 45 and the 1.03  
acres on SE 21-36-5-W4 of Reference 46). This review of comparable leases submitted by the Operator  
confirms this rate as a reliable indication of agreements reached between agriculture producers and energy  
operators in the area.  
[98]  
The Panel is not persuaded that $350.00 per acre for loss of use applies to Crown leases. The  
Applicants have not provided sufficient quantitative evidence to persuade the Panel that the sustained  
production achieved on these lands supports this requested amount for loss of use.  
[99]  
The Panel finds the all-inclusive compensation rate of $1500.00 determined by the pattern evidence  
to be a reliable indication of compensation for surface leases on Crown lands without fences (References  
1, 2, 13, 16, 27 & 30). There is no evidence the production achieved by the Applicants is sufficiently and  
consistently higher than that achieved by similar dispositions in the vicinity to support a higher all-inclusive  
rate of compensation.  
[100] The aerial view of the Crown leases on SE 31-36-4-W4 and NE 30-36-4-W4 (PDF 85/319; Exhibit  
3) indicates the fenced areas and how they are likely to impact ongoing farm operations. The Panel finds  
the Operator’s boundary fences are cogent reasons to depart from the all-inclusive compensation established  
in the pattern evidence. For Crown leases with boundary fences, the Panel finds it reasonable that farm  
operations will incur extra time and expense.  
[101] Telford and Sheehan provided calculations of tangible adverse effects account for the extra travel  
time and turns prior to and after fencing (Paragraph 97). The average tangible adverse effect for the surface  
leases on Crown lands with fences is $67.33 per site. The Applicants claim a flat amount of $500 for fences  
on a lease with the explanation this amount is for the increased travel time to access portions of land,  
increased stress on equipment and operators as well as creating cattle handling and safety issues. The Panel  
is not persuaded that this flat rate provides a reliable quantification of these factors. The Panel finds Telford  
and Sheehan’s estimate of tangible adverse effect to be a more reliable measure as it is based on more  
detailed consideration of the factors. The Panel finds the incremental amount of $67.33 per site can be  
rounded to $100.00 per site to account for the impact of fences on farm operations. The Panel finds the  
fenced leases under Consent of Occupant agreements (Reference Nos. 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 34  
& 39) would earn all-inclusive compensation of $1,600.00 per year for the compensation years beginning  
after November 1, 2019.  
Adverse Effect s. 25(1)(d) of the Act  
[102] The Applicants submitted that the rate of $2,500.00 for adverse effect is justified by factors that  
are significant impediments to their intensive farming and ranching operations. These include the  
proximity of the Battery site, the almost 50 lease sites on the lands, the presence of power poles to service  
lease sites, the fencing of lease sites limiting access to fields, and gates which are kept locked without the  
landowner having a key.  
[103] The Applicants submitted a wide range of past experiences to support the request for adverse  
37  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
effects of $2,500.00 being applied to all sites. General adverse effects supported by photographs include:  
a) Cattle guards full of snow such that cattle can walk over them.  
b) Weed issues with particular mention of foxtail barley and organic lands.  
c) Dust issues including damage from dust.  
d) Water runoff issues.  
e) Vehicles travelling off lease, leading to ruts in fields.  
f) Noise issues.  
g) Poorly constructed fencing and a lack of consultation with land owners.  
h) Numerous complaints to AER regarding of odors, leaks and excessive flaring.  
i) Multiple fires due to transformers catching fire.  
j) Electrical outages due to fuse blowing on power poles running to sites.  
k) Increased traffic leading to increased dust and noise issues.  
[104] The Applicants also submitted photos demonstrating the specific factors contributing to adverse  
effects for each of the referenced sites as follows:  
Ref. Specific Adverse Effect Factors  
1
2
Cultivated & seeded; not fenced, H2S concerns; poor cattle guards; power poles unprotected  
Power pole on lease, landowner fence on west side, using landowner gate  
Proximity to home quarter, poor cattle guards, weeds rampant  
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Seeded to hay crops; weeds, dust, gates left open, goats can get under fence to well site  
Seeded & cultivated, dust from traffic, weeds, gates left open, leaks  
Cultivated and seeded to hay; gaps in gate that goas can enter, dust, weeds, traffic, odors  
Dust, traffic, weeds, gophers, debris  
Cultivated, hay land, trees have died off to the north of lease, weeds  
Weeds, dust, drainage issues, gates left open, no access by owner to check cattle  
Weeds on berm, spill in 2018, fenced lease, gates not goat proof  
10 Hay land; 2 wells, 2 power poles, tech fence is hazard to cattle. Weeds, dust  
11 Lease fenced outside actual perimeter, 2 power poles, Texas gate is off lease.  
12 Cultivated and farmed, weeds & dust issues, poor cattle guards  
13 Cultivated and farmed, not fenced, weeds, dust and issue with cattle and spill tank  
14 Fencing causes reduced farmable land, dust & weed issues, poor cattle guards  
15 Home quarter proximity, power poles, south side of fence is owner’s fence, weeds, dust, odor  
16 Not fenced, has gate, poor cattle guards  
17 Weeds, dust, power poles, partly fenced  
18 Lease is fenced, weeds, dust, ATCO strip is unusable for farming equipment  
19 Home quarter, large lease that is fenced, weeds, dust, power poles  
20 3 power poles off lease, fenced well site, excessive weeds & dust, gates locked  
21 Unprotected power pole, weeds & dust, debris and stakes laying around  
22 Improper cattle guards, noise, dust, weeds, access not on proper lease access, issue with tank berm &  
cattle  
23 Cultivated farmland, weeds, dust, cable on ground was a hazard, post partially surrounding lease  
24 Weeds, dust, & debris; survey stakes damaged farm equipment  
25 Weeds & dust  
26 Weeds, dust, gophers, leaks, improper cattle guards, frequent battery site alarms  
27 Tech fences and poles create obstacles, odors, 6 power poles on lease 3 poles on deeded land, lease not  
fenced, weeds & dust  
28 Weeds & dust, improper cattle guards  
29 Weeds & dust, poor cattle guards  
38  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref. Specific Adverse Effect Factors  
30 Fence allowed cattle onto lease.  
31 Fence limits access with farm equipment, calls to AER due to odor, leaks and weeds, tech fence too  
close to pump jack  
32 Fence causes bottleneck, weeds  
28 Weeds & dust, improper cattle guards  
29 Weeds & dust, poor cattle guards  
30 Fence allowed cattle onto lease.  
31 Fence limits access with farm equipment, calls to AER due to odor, leaks and weeds, tech fence too  
close to pump jack  
32 Fence causes bottleneck, weeds  
33 Vehicle travel off lease due to wet state of access road, fenced, noisy pump jack  
34 Three separate tech fences cause bottleneck and issues with cattle, calls to AER due to leaks and smells,  
noisy pump jack  
35 Fenced lease, dust & weeds, replacement of gate no longer allows access to hay fields  
36 Fenced, weeds, gates left open, calls to AER due to leaks, smells and road noise  
37 Fenced lease, lease not mowed, foxtail barley on farm land needed to be mowed in 2020  
38 Fenced lease weeds  
39 Fenced lease, weeds, loss of farmland, culvert is an issue back to 2017/2018  
40 Fenced lease, weeds, material left on ground, never mowed so is fire hazard  
41 Fenced, farmland is inaccessible, bottle neck due to fencing and location of other, lease fencing  
42 Gate too narrow for equipment, leaking oil, boxed off areas due to old fencing and new fencing  
43 East side of 10 acres cut off, no approach to field, fenced access road, dust weeds  
44 10 acres cut off, because of fence against creek, 9 power poles off lease, lots of turns and missed area,  
weeds, sites not being mowed.  
45 Battery site, locked gates, issues with access to fields, increased truck traffic, dust, constant noise,  
garbage and debris, tanks leaking, flaring,  
46 Long access road, weeds never mowed creating fire hazard  
47 Poor fence, time spent picking up garbage  
[105] The Applicants submit NW 30-36-4-W4 is a home quarter with a yard site and residence that is  
exposed to higher adverse effects of noise, nuisance and inconvenience. Further, these factors warrant an  
additional $500.00 in compensation for lease sites proximate to the yard site (References 3, 7, 14, 19, 24,  
26, 28, 32, 35, 36 & 38). An additional $250.00 is claimed for two leases sites on NW 30 (Reference 33  
& 37).  
[106] The Applicants submit the Battery Site located on NW 30 is on cultivated land. This industrial  
facility is in close proximity to the residence and contributes to disturbance and health issues along with  
constant stress. The Applicants claim a base Adverse Effect of $18,000.00 along with compensation for  
fencing of $2,000.00, the effect of an extra well of $5,000.00, a home quarter effect of $5,000.00, the  
effect of H2S gas at $2,500.00.  
[107] The Applicants’ final claim for each site is based on initial requests and revisions that combined  
components of loss of use and adverse effects5. These are presented as follows:  
5 Paragraph 79 in Applicants Final Argument  
39  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Applicants’ Final Request for Total Compensation  
Ref  
s27  
Application  
No.  
Acres Effective Land Use  
Date  
Consent  
of  
Occupant  
LOU  
AE  
Poles Fence  
Acres  
Missed  
$ for  
Acres  
Missed structure  
Extra  
Infra-  
H2S  
Home  
1/4  
Total  
Comp  
30-Aug-  
19  
26-Apr-  
19  
16-Sep-  
16  
19-Dec-  
16  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
1
2
3
5
SL2021.0009  
SL2021.0010  
SL2021.0011  
SL2021.0014  
4.88  
4.59  
2.23  
3.45  
1.84  
$1,800  
$0  
$0  
$1,000  
$2,800.00  
$4,256.50  
$5,566.25  
$4,792.45  
Grazing  
$350 $2,500 $150  
$350 $2,500  
Cultivated  
Crown  
Grazing  
$500  
$500  
2.245  
0.957  
$786  
$335  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$350 $2,500  
$250  
19-Dec-  
16  
6
7
SL2021.0017  
SL2021.0019  
Cultivated  
$350 $2,500  
$350 $2,500  
$500  
$500  
0.847  
4.024  
$296  
$3,940.45  
$6,405.90  
2.85 07-Jul-17 Cultivated  
$1,408  
$500  
$500  
24-Oct-  
17  
31-Dec-  
18  
11-Mar-  
19  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
8
SL2021.0020  
SL2021.0021  
SL2021.0024  
SL2021.0026  
SL2021.0029  
SL2021.0030  
SL2021.0032  
SL2021.0033  
SL2021.0034  
SL2021.0035  
SL2021.0036  
2.79  
2.66  
2.78  
$350 $2,500  
$350 $2,500  
$450  
$500  
$500  
3.82  
$1,337  
$41  
$5,813.50  
$4,222.30  
$3,250.00  
$4,817.25  
$3,781.00  
$6,083.25  
$4,791.50  
$1,800.00  
$3,850.20  
$4,684.90  
$5,354.15  
9
0.118  
$250  
10  
11  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
$1,800  
$0  
$1,000  
2.29 12-Jul-19  
$350 $2,500 $300  
$350 $2,500  
$350 $2,500  
$350 $2,500 $150  
$500  
2.045  
$716  
2.87 25-Jul-19  
12-Mar-  
1.99  
3.87  
2.38  
1.51  
3.30  
3.19  
17  
21-Sep-  
19  
21-Sep-  
19  
30-Nov-  
19  
08-Mar-  
20  
$500  
$500  
1.105  
0.82  
$387  
$287  
$0  
$1,000  
$500  
$500  
$1,800  
0.341  
0.062  
1.514  
0.679  
$350 $2,500 $300  
$350 $2,500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$21.70  
$530  
$238  
12-Mar-  
17  
Cultivated  
$350 $2,500  
$500  
$500  
40  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref  
s27  
Application  
No.  
Acres Effective Land Use  
Consent  
of  
Occupant  
LOU  
AE  
Poles Fence  
Acres  
Missed  
$ for  
Acres  
Missed  
Extra  
Infra-  
structure  
H2S  
Home  
1/4  
Total  
Comp  
Date  
07-Apr-  
20  
26-Apr-  
18  
15-Nov-  
16  
15-Nov-  
16  
08-Jan-  
17  
21-Dec-  
20  
08-Jan-  
16  
23-Feb-  
17  
20  
23  
24  
25  
26  
27  
28  
29  
30  
31  
SL2021.0037  
SL2021.0045  
SL2021.0047  
SL2021.0049  
SL2021.0051  
SL2021.0054  
SL2021.0055  
SL2021.0056  
SL2021.0057  
SL2021.0058  
3.37  
3.36  
2.05  
3.20  
2.93  
2.99  
2.40  
3.81  
4.02  
2.81  
2.86  
Cultivated  
Cultivated  
Cultivated  
Cultivated  
$350 $2,500 $300  
$350 $2,500 $750  
$350 $2,500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
0.872  
0.313  
1.158  
0.142  
2.068  
0.463  
0.602  
1.786  
$305  
$110  
$405  
$50  
$0  
$4,784.70  
$4,535.55  
$5,122.80  
$3,669.70  
$3,300.00  
$4,908.55  
$2,800.00  
$4,708.60  
$3,907.00  
$2,050.00  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$350 $2,500  
Cultivated  
Crown  
Grazing  
$1,800  
$1,800  
$1,20  
$350 $2,500  
0
$162  
$0  
Cultivated  
$500  
$250  
Pasture  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
$350 $2,500  
$350 $2,500  
$625  
$0  
12-Mar-  
17  
12-Mar-  
17  
26-Apr-  
18  
$1,800  
$250  
2.216  
$0  
32  
33  
SL2021.0061  
SL2021.0063  
Cultivated  
$350 $2,500  
$350 $2,500  
$500  
$500  
1
$350  
$189  
$500  
$250  
$4,851.00  
$4,163.50  
2.07 07-Jul-17 Cultivated  
Crown  
0.54  
34  
35  
36  
37  
38  
39  
SL2021.0064  
SL2021.0066  
SL2021.0070  
SL2021.0071  
SL2021.0072  
SL2021.0074  
2.15 07-Jul-17  
16-Sep-  
Grazing  
Cultivated  
Cultivated  
Cultivated  
$350 $2,500  
$350 $2,000  
$350 $2,500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
0.535  
0.982  
2.334  
0.397  
0.254  
3.547  
$187  
$344  
$817  
$139  
$89  
$3,939.75  
$4,270.70  
$5,681.40  
$4,266.45  
$4,799.40  
$5,581.45  
1.22  
2.47  
1.65  
2.03  
2.40  
16  
19-Nov-  
16  
21-Dec-  
20  
21-Dec-  
20  
06-Feb-  
16  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$500  
$250  
$500  
$500  
$350 $2,500 $300  
$350 $2,500  
Cultivated  
Crown  
Grazing  
$500  
$350 $2,500  
$1,241  
41  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref  
s27  
Application  
No.  
Acres Effective Land Use  
Consent  
of  
Occupant  
LOU  
AE  
Poles Fence  
Acres  
Missed  
$ for  
Acres  
Missed  
Extra  
Infra-  
structure  
H2S  
Home  
1/4  
Total  
Comp  
Date  
41  
45  
46  
SL2021.0078  
SL2019.0097  
SL2019.0096  
0.58 20-Jul-17 Cultivated  
08-Aug-  
$350 $2,500  
$18,00  
$300  
$2,00  
0
$0  
$1,010  
$0  
$3,003.00  
$36,040.5  
0
$2,50  
0
7.23  
16  
16-Feb-  
16  
Cultivated  
$350  
0
2.887  
$5,000  
$5,000  
4.10  
Cultivated  
$350 $2,500  
$3,935.00  
42  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[108] Telford and Sheehan considered the tangible adverse effect of the operator’s activities on farming  
operations. The key assumption was that farming operations taking place around the boundaries of the well  
sites and access roads have added costs due to overlap and additional inputs as well as reduced yields due  
to compaction. Calculations of added costs were made based on estimates of the added distance, added  
turns and added time required in field operations related to hay production in an 8-year rotation. In addition,  
the number of 90 degree turns was considered in order to calculate unseeded areas which allowed for  
estimating loss amounts based on the relevant loss of use ($/acre) factor.  
[109] Telford and Sheehan reviewed a wide range of research to arrive at 15% as a measure of crop loss  
due to additional inputs and compaction from overlap. The 15% factor, when applied to loss of use  
measures and acres of overlap, determined the total crop loss associated with overlap. As well, additional  
input costs due to overlap were accounted for to determine the total costs associated with farming  
operations around the lease sites and access roads.  
[110] Telford and Sheehan also developed calculations for before fencing and after fencing to  
determine an estimate of increases in distance, turns, unseeded acres, overlap and added inputs to arrive at  
estimates of increased total costs related to maneuvering around the fenced well sites.  
[111] Tangible adverse effects for both prior to fencing and after fencing were estimated for sites where  
the adjacent land use was for tame forage production.  
[112] For pasture lands (both lease and freehold) with no field operations, the measurable impacts were  
determined to be the additional time required of the landowner associated with the leases. Five hours were  
determined to be the additional time a landowner would require to deal with extra surveillance and  
inspection, additional discussions with the Operator and additional time required for administrative tasks.  
Telford and Sheehan used the rate of $50.00 per hour to arrive at the estimated amount of $250.00 for the  
adverse effect of these leases.  
[113] The total tangible adverse effects for each site were presented in a summary table. This table is  
replicated as follows:  
Ref.  
s27 Application  
No.  
Acres  
Review Date  
Tangible  
Adverse Effect  
(Rounded) Prior  
to Fencing  
Tangible Adverse  
Effect (Rounded)  
After Fencing  
1
2
SL2021.0009  
SL2021.0010  
4.88  
4.59  
August 30, 2019  
$250.00  
$250.00  
$250.00  
$250.00  
April 26, 2019  
September 16,  
2016  
December 19,  
2016  
3
5
SL2021.0011  
SL2021.0014  
2.23  
3.45  
$212.00  
$257.00  
$227.00  
$265.00  
December 19,  
2016  
July 7, 2017  
October 24, 2017  
December 31,  
2018  
March 11, 2019  
July 12, 2019  
6
7
8
SL2021.0017  
SL2021.0019  
SL2021.0020  
1.84  
2.85  
2.79  
$30.00  
$115.00  
$97.00  
$150.00  
$198.00  
$196.00  
9
10  
11  
SL2021.0021  
SL2021.0024  
SL2021.0026  
2.66  
2.78  
2.29  
$88.00  
$250.00  
$42.00  
$143.00  
$250.00  
$119.00  
43  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref.  
s27 Application  
No.  
Acres  
Review Date  
Tangible  
Tangible Adverse  
Effect (Rounded)  
After Fencing  
Adverse Effect  
(Rounded) Prior  
to Fencing  
13  
14  
SL2021.0029  
SL2021.0030  
2.87  
1.99  
July 25, 2019  
$250.00  
$41.00  
$250.00  
$0.00  
March 12, 2017  
September 21,  
2019  
September 21,  
2019  
15  
16  
SL2021.0032  
SL2021.0033  
3.87  
2.38  
$65.00  
$247.00  
$321.00  
$250.00  
November 30,  
2019  
March 8, 2020  
March 12, 2017  
April 7, 2020  
April 26, 2018  
November 15,  
2016  
17  
18  
19  
20  
23  
SL2021.0034  
SL2021.0035  
SL2021.0036  
SL2021.0037  
SL2021.0045  
1.51  
3.26  
3.26  
3.37  
3.36  
$250.00  
N/A  
$210.00  
$343.00  
$148.00  
$261.00  
$154.00  
$178.00  
$105.00  
24  
SL2021.0047  
2.05  
$142.00  
November 15,  
2016  
January 8, 2017  
December 21,  
2020  
January 8, 2016  
February 23, 2017  
March 12, 2017  
March 12, 2017  
April 26, 2018  
July 7, 2017  
July 7, 2017  
September 16,  
2016  
25  
26  
SL2021.0049  
SL2021.0051  
3.2  
2.93  
$111.00  
$85.00  
$128.00  
27  
28  
29  
30  
31  
32  
33  
34  
SL2021.0054  
SL2021.0055  
SL2021.0056  
SL2021.0057  
SL2021.0058  
SL2021.0061  
SL2021.0063  
SL2021.0064  
2.99  
2.4  
$250.00  
$81.00  
$250.00  
$30.00  
$250.00  
$342.00  
$154.00  
$30.00  
$250.00  
$159.00  
$250.00  
3.81  
4.02  
2.81  
1.38  
2.07  
2.15  
$250.00  
$383.00  
$138.00  
$0.00  
35  
36  
37  
SL2021.0066  
SL2021.0070  
SL2021.0071  
1.22  
2.47  
1.65  
$115.00  
$149.00  
$128.00  
November 16,  
2019  
December 21,  
2020  
$67.00  
December 21,  
2020  
February 6, 2016  
July 20, 2017  
August 8, 2016  
February 16, 2016  
38  
39  
41  
45  
46  
SL2021.0072  
SL2021.0074  
SL2021.0078  
SL2019.0097  
2.03  
2.4  
-0.58  
7.23  
NE 21  
4.1  
$138.00  
$123.00  
$58.00  
$281.00  
$200.00  
$31.00  
$23.00  
$200.00  
$50.00  
SL2019.0096  
SE 21  
1.1  
$50.00  
March 29, 2016  
44  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[114] Telford and Sheehan determined intangible adverse effects to be a range of factors including noise,  
loss of quiet enjoyment, time dealing with various personnel accessing the site and traffic concerns. As  
these could not be measured, they relied on an estimate of the additional time required to deal with these  
factors. They arrived at eight hours per well site location. At the rate of $50.00 per hour this amounted to  
$400.00 per year for each site.  
[115] Telford presented detailed information on the status and frequency of access for each of the leases.  
Active sites (References 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 36,  
38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 & 45) were entered daily. Suspended and abandoned sites (References 5, 6, 8, 10, 14,  
19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 46, & 47) were entered annually.  
[116] Telford provided the following estimates of total compensation for each of the subject sites as at  
the applicable effective date.  
Ref.  
s27  
Application  
No.  
Acres  
Effective Date Loss of Use  
Adverse  
Effect  
Total  
1
SL2021.0009  
SL2021.0010  
SL2021.0011  
SL2021.0014  
SL2021.0017  
SL2021.0019  
SL2021.0020  
SL2021.0021  
SL2021.0024  
SL2021.0026  
SL2021.0029  
SL2021.0030  
SL2021.0032  
SL2021.0033  
SL2021.0034  
SL2021.0035  
SL2021.0036  
SL2021.0037  
SL2021.0045  
SL2021.0047  
SL2021.0049  
SL2021.0051  
SL2021.0054  
SL2021.0055  
SL2021.0056  
4.88  
4.59  
2.23  
3.45  
1.84  
2.85  
2.79  
2.66  
2.78  
2.29  
2.87  
1.99  
3.87  
2.38  
1.51  
3.26  
3.26  
3.37  
3.36  
2.05  
3.2  
30-Aug-19  
26-Apr-19  
16-Sep-16  
16-Dec-19  
16-Dec-19  
07-Jul-17  
24-Oct-17  
18-Dec-31  
11-Mar-19  
12-Jul-19  
25-Jul-19  
12-Mar-17  
19-Sep-21  
19-Sep-21  
19-Nov-30  
01-Mar-20  
12-Mar-17  
07-Apr-20  
26-Apr-18  
16-Nov-15  
16-Nov-15  
08-Jan-17  
20-Dec-21  
08-Jan-16  
23-Feb-17  
$5.00  
$8.00  
$650.00  
$650.00  
$612.00  
$657.00  
$430.00  
$515.00  
$497.00  
$488.00  
$650.00  
$442.00  
$650.00  
$441.00  
$465.00  
$650.00  
$743.00  
$548.00  
$610.00  
$554.00  
$578.00  
$505.00  
$511.00  
$485.00  
$650.00  
$481.00  
$650.00  
$655.00  
$658.00  
$658.00  
$668.00  
$431.00  
$540.00  
$501.00  
$492.00  
$652.00  
$443.00  
$652.00  
$442.00  
$473.00  
$650.24  
$753.00  
$584.00  
$643.00  
$756.00  
$604.00  
$534.00  
$527.00  
$497.00  
$653.00  
$501.00  
$656.00  
2
3
$46.00  
$11.00  
$1.00  
5
6
7
$25.00  
$4.00  
8
9
$4.00  
10  
11  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
23  
24  
25  
26  
27  
28  
29  
$2.00  
$1.00  
$2.00  
$1.00  
$8.00  
$0.24  
$10.00  
$36.00  
$33.00  
$202.00  
$26.00  
$29.00  
$16.00  
$12.00  
$3.00  
2.93  
2.99  
2.4  
$20.00  
$6.00  
3.81  
45  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref.  
s27  
Application  
No.  
Acres  
Effective Date Loss of Use  
Adverse  
Effect  
Total  
30  
31  
32  
33  
34  
35  
36  
37  
38  
SL2021.0057  
SL2021.0058  
SL2021.0061  
SL2021.0063  
SL2021.0064  
SL2021.0066  
SL2021.0070  
SL2021.0071  
SL2021.0072  
4.02  
2.81  
1.38  
2.07  
2.15  
1.22  
2.47  
1.65  
2.03  
12-Mar-17  
12-Mar-17  
26-Apr-18  
07-Jul-17  
07-Jul-17  
16-Sep-16  
16-Nov-19  
20-Dec-21  
20-Dec-21  
$0.00  
$0.00  
$430.00  
$650.00  
$742.00  
$554.00  
$430.00  
$400.00  
$467.00  
$528.00  
$538.00  
$430.00  
$650.00  
$787.00  
$586.00  
$431.00  
$400.00  
$490.00  
$635.00  
$670.00  
$45.00  
$32.00  
$1.00  
$0.00  
$23.00  
$107.00  
$132.00  
39  
41  
45  
SL2021.0074  
SL2021.0078  
SL2019.0097  
2.4  
06-Feb-16  
20-Jul-17  
$1.00  
$1.00  
$431.00  
$423.00  
$432.00  
$424.00  
0.58  
7.23  
4.1  
08-Aug-16  
NE 21  
$470.00  
$0.00  
$681.00  
$520.00  
$1,151.00  
$520.00  
February 16,  
2016  
46  
SL2019.0096  
1.1  
SE 21  
$0.00  
$130.00  
$130.00  
March 29,  
2016  
Tribunal Analysis  
[117] When undertaking a review of compensation under s. 27 of the Act, the Panel’s obligation is to  
determine the loss of use and adverse effect as of the effective date of review. In Jorsvick v Pennzoil  
Petroleum Ltd., 1988 ABCA 108 () at para 8, the Court emphasized that  
… once either party triggers a review, the entire question of annual compensation is at large, and  
must again be fixed by the Tribunal on the basis of the material then before it. What happened  
earlier is merely a factor to be considered. It is not correct to say that the applicant, to gain a  
change in the award, must show altered circumstances. It is correct to say that, to gain any new  
award, the applicant will only get the award he proves he is entitled to. The onus is on the applicant,  
whoever he may be.  
[118] The Operator submits that the Applicants bear the onus to present persuasive evidence and  
argument to support their position on compensation. The Operator argued that the Applicants’ evidence is  
unquantified and inadequate to meet the evidentiary onus required to support the requested claims for  
compensation.  
[119] The Operator argues that the Applicants’ approach of setting a base amount for Adverse Effect,  
then including additional amounts for the effects of fencing, home quarter section and missed acres,  
amounts to double accounting. Further, Adverse Effect is an all-inclusive rate that reflects varying features  
of sites and adding to this rate blends POD analysis with empirical analysis. This approach makes it difficult  
for the Panel to determine whether the Applicant is seeking an increase for loss of use, or adverse effect, or  
both.  
46  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[120] The Panel considered Telford’s Negotiated Agreements Review which included a review of 28  
lease agreements on freehold cultivated and 69 lease agreements on freehold pasture land. The Panel is  
persuaded the median of $2,100.00 per acre for freehold cultivated and the median of $1,800.00 per acre  
for freehold pasture land are reliable representations of the general state of negotiations between land  
owners and energy operators in the area. However, the Panel finds these amounts for adverse effect do not  
consider proximity to a yard site and the impact that the operator’s fences have on farm operations.  
[121] The Panel finds References 3, 7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 32, 33, 35-38, 41 & 45 expose the yard site and  
residence to greater noise, nuisance and inconvenience than considered in the pattern evidence. Neither the  
Applicants nor the Operator provided comparable evidence to support or deny adverse effect compensation  
for a home quarter in similar circumstances. The Panel is persuaded by the evidence detailing specific  
Adverse Effect factors. The Panel finds it reasonable that leases proximate to the yard site on NW 30-36-  
4-W4 should attract higher compensation of $300.00 per year to account for the above factors as well as  
the dust and weeds indicated in the photographic evidence. Further the Panel finds that the proximity of the  
yard site to the Battery Site attracts a higher compensation of $4,000.00 for Adverse Effect due to the  
ongoing disturbance caused by flaring, truck traffic and noise.  
[122] The Panel finds the power poles located off-lease sites are not elements affecting compensation for  
adverse effect as they are not the Operator’s facilities. The Panel is persuaded by the Operator’s argument  
that it is not responsible for compensation related to power facilities located off their lease sites, as these  
are on the Applicants' lands under separate dispositions held by the power company, and that on-site  
electrical facilities are compensated by loss of use compensation.  
[123] The Panel finds that extra infrastructure on a lease site adds to inconvenience, and disturbance. The  
Panel places much weight on the Operator’s POD evidence of 21 lease agreements with the majority (76%)  
determining compensation of $750.00 per well. The Applicant provided details of three lease agreements  
with compensation of $1000.00 per additional well. The Panel finds $750.00 to be a fair and reasonable  
rate of compensation that is representative of the negotiations in the area, based on a greater number of  
lease agreements arriving at this amount.  
[124] The Panel finds the flat rate of $500 for H2S is not substantiated. None of the evidence connects  
the Operator’s activities to the claims of odours and their impact on the applicants and their livestock.  
[125] The Panel finds it is more likely than not that the concentration of fenced surface leases on NW 30-  
36-4-W4 and SW 30-36-4-W4 cause extra time and expense for farm operations. The aerial view provided  
in Exhibit 3 (PDF 85/319) demonstrates the concentration of fenced areas and how they create obstacles to  
farming operations, including tight corners that are problematic for operating equipment, which in turn  
contribute to missed acres of production.  
[126] As stated, Telford and Sheehan provided estimates of increased distance, turns, unseeded acres,  
overlap and inputs before fencing and after fencing. This allowed them to arrive at estimates of increased  
operating costs related to maneuvering around the fenced well sites on freehold cultivated lands. From  
these calculations, the average increase in total costs after fencing for surface leases on freehold cultivated  
lands amounts to $93.40 per site.  
[127] Telford and Sheehan also provided estimates of the increases in missed acres (Paragraph 81) after  
fencing on freehold cultivated land. These estimates averaged 1.74 missed acres per site. The Applicants’  
measures (Paragraph 34) averaged 1.26 missed acres per site. The midpoint between these two measures is  
1.50 missed acres per site. The Applicants claimed the loss of use value of $350.00 for these missed acres.  
The Panel is not persuaded missed acres should be compensated at the rate of $350.00 per acre which is the  
equivalent of a total loss of production. The photographic evidence demonstrates that there is production in  
47  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
the areas adjacent to the boundary fences however, owing to the difficulties in operating equipment in these  
areas, there is likely to be reduced production, particularly when operating larger seeding equipment. The  
Panel finds a reasonable compensation for the loss of reduced production on missed acres to be $140.00  
per acre (40% of $350.00). Applying this loss in production to the average of 1.5 acres per site amounts to  
an average loss of $210.00 per site. The Panel finds that additional compensation of ($93.40 + $210.00) =  
$303.40, rounded to $300.00, for incremental adverse effects, should be applied to the surface leases on  
freehold cultivated land (Reference Nos. 3, 6, 7,19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 32, 33, 35-38, 41 & 45) for compensation  
years beginning after November 1, 2019.  
Tribunal Decision – Total Compensation  
[128] As a result of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the loss of use and adverse effect compensation  
for the leases sites shall be based on the following:  
Cultivated Freehold Lands  
Loss of Use  
$350.00 per acre  
Adverse Effect  
After Nov. 1, 2019  
$2,100.00  
$2,400.00  
Wellsite/Padsite  
Wellsite/Padsite on home quarter  
Wellsite/Padsite with boundary fencing  
$2,100.00 per year  
$2,400.00 per year  
$2,100.00 per year  
$2,400.00  
Wellsite/Padsite on home quarter with fencing $2,400.00 per year  
$2,700.00  
Pasture/ Native Prairie Freehold Lands  
Loss of Use  
$300.00 per acre  
Adverse Effect  
After Nov. 1, 2019  
$1,800.00  
$2,100.00  
Wellsite/Padsite  
Wellsite/Padsite on home quarter  
Wellsite/Padsite with boundary fencing  
$1,800.00 per year  
$2,100.00 per year  
$1,800.00 per year  
$2,100.00  
Wellsite/Padsite on home quarter with fencing $2,100.00 per year  
$2,400.00  
Battery Site  
$4,000.00 per year  
Additional Well Head Compensation $750.00 per additional well head per year.  
Consent of Occupant  
Without Fences  
With Fences  
For years prior to November 2019  
For Years after November 1, 2019  
$1,500.00 per year  
$1,500.00 per year  
$1,500 per year  
$1,600 per year  
Based on the above, the total compensation for each lease site is determined as follows:  
48  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref  
s27  
Application  
No.  
Acres  
Effective  
Date  
Land Use  
Consent  
of  
Occupant  
LOU  
$/acre  
AE  
$
Home  
Extra  
Infrast.  
Total  
Comp  
Before  
Nov 1  
2019  
Fenced  
Total  
Comp  
Date  
Compensation  
After Nov Rate Increases  
1 2019  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
1
SL2021.0009  
4.88  
30-Aug-19  
26-Apr-19  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$750  
$2,250  
$2,250  
30-Aug-20  
2
3
SL2021.0010  
SL2021.0011  
4.59  
2.23  
Grazing  
$1,500  
$3,181  
$1,500  
$3,481  
16-Sep-16 Cultivated  
Crown  
$350  
$2,100  
$300  
$300  
$300  
16-Sep-20  
5
6
7
SL2021.0014  
SL2021.0017  
SL2021.0019  
3.45  
1.84  
2.85  
19-Dec-16  
Grazing  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$2,744  
$3,398  
$100  
$300  
$300  
$1,600  
$3,044  
$3,698  
19-Dec-19  
19-Dec-19  
7-Jul-20  
19-Dec-16 Cultivated  
$350  
$350  
$2,100  
$2,100  
07-Jul-17  
24-Oct-17  
31-Dec-18  
11-Mar-19  
12-Jul-19  
25-Jul-19  
12-Mar-17  
21-Sep-19  
21-Sep-19  
Cultivated  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
8
SL2021.0020  
SL2021.0021  
SL2021.0024  
SL2021.0026  
SL2021.0029  
SL2021.0030  
SL2021.0032  
SL2021.0033  
2.79  
2.66  
2.78  
2.29  
2.87  
1.99  
3.87  
2.38  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,750  
$2,250  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$2,550  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$100  
$100  
$1,600  
$1,850  
$2,250  
$1,600  
$1,500  
$2,650  
$1,600  
$1,500  
24-Oct-20  
31-Dec-19  
9
$250  
$750  
10  
11  
13  
14  
15  
16  
$100  
12-Jul-20  
$300  
$750  
$100  
$100  
12-Mar-20  
21-Sep-20  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
17  
18  
SL2021.0034  
SL2021.0035  
1.51  
3.30  
30-Nov-19  
08-Mar-20  
Grazing  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$100  
$100  
$1,600  
$1,600  
30-Nov-19  
8-Mar-20  
Crown  
Grazing  
49  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref  
s27  
Application  
No.  
Acres  
Effective  
Date  
Land Use  
Consent  
of  
Occupant  
LOU  
$/acre  
AE  
$
Home  
Extra  
Infrast.  
Total  
Comp  
Before  
Fenced  
Total  
Comp  
Date  
Compensation  
After Nov Rate Increases  
2019  
Nov 2019  
19  
20  
23  
24  
25  
26  
SL2021.0036  
SL2021.0037  
SL2021.0045  
SL2021.0047  
SL2021.0049  
SL2021.0051  
3.19  
3.37  
3.36  
2.05  
3.20  
2.93  
12-Mar-17 Cultivated  
07-Apr-20 Cultivated  
26-Apr-18 Cultivated  
15-Nov-16 Cultivated  
15-Nov-16 Cultivated  
$350  
$350  
$350  
$350  
$350  
$350  
$2,100  
$2,100  
$2,100  
$2,100  
$2,100  
$2,100  
$300  
$3,517  
$3,280  
$3,276  
$3,118  
$3,220  
$3,426  
$300  
$300  
$3,817  
$3,580  
$3,276  
$3,418  
$3,220  
$3,726  
12-Mar-20  
7-Apr-20  
$300  
$300  
$300  
$300  
15-Nov-19  
15-Nov-19  
8-Jan-20  
08-Jan-17  
Cultivated  
Crown  
27  
28  
SL2021.0054  
SL2021.0055  
2.99  
2.40  
21-Dec-20  
08-Jan-16  
Grazing  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$3,240  
$1,500  
$3,540  
Cultivated  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
Grazing  
Crown  
$350  
$2,100  
$300  
$300  
$100  
8-Jan-20  
29  
30  
SL2021.0056  
SL2021.0057  
3.81  
4.02  
23-Feb-17  
12-Mar-17  
12-Mar-17  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$1,600  
$1,500  
23-Feb-20  
31  
32  
33  
SL2021.0058  
SL2021.0061  
SL2021.0063  
2.81  
2.86  
2.07  
Grazing  
$1,500  
$3,401  
$3,125  
$100  
$300  
$300  
$1,600  
$3,701  
$3,425  
12-Mar-20  
26-Apr-20  
7-Jul-20  
26-Apr-18 Cultivated  
$350  
$350  
$2,100  
$2,100  
$300  
$300  
07-Jul-17  
07-Jul-17  
Cultivated  
Crown  
Grazing  
34  
35  
36  
37  
SL2021.0064  
SL2021.0066  
SL2021.0070  
SL2021.0071  
2.15  
1.22  
2.47  
1.65  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$2,827  
$3,265  
$2,978  
$100  
$300  
$300  
$300  
$1,600  
$3,127  
$3,565  
$3,278  
7-Jul-20  
16-Sep-20  
19-Nov-19  
21-Dec-20  
16-Sep-16 Cultivated  
19-Nov-16 Cultivated  
21-Dec-20 Cultivated  
$350  
$350  
$350  
$2,100  
$2,100  
$2,100  
$300  
$300  
$300  
38  
SL2021.0072  
2.03  
21-Dec-20 Cultivated  
$350  
$2,100  
$300  
$3,111  
$300  
$3,411  
21-Dec-20  
50  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref  
s27  
Application  
No.  
Acres  
Effective  
Date  
Land Use  
Consent  
of  
Occupant  
LOU  
$/acre  
AE  
$
Home  
Extra  
Infrast.  
Total  
Comp  
Before  
Fenced  
Total  
Comp  
Date  
Compensation  
After Nov Rate Increases  
2019  
Nov 2019  
Crown  
39  
41  
45  
SL2021.0074  
SL2021.0078  
SL2019.0097  
2.40  
0.58  
06-Feb-16  
20-Jul-17  
Grazing  
$1,500  
$1,500  
$2,303  
$100  
$300  
$300  
$1,600  
$2,603  
6-Feb-20  
20-Jul-20  
Cultivated  
$350  
$2,100  
$4,000  
7.23  
4.10  
1.03  
8-Aug-16  
16-Feb-16  
March 29, Cultivated  
2016  
Cultivated  
Pasture  
$350  
$300  
$350  
$300  
$6,831  
$1,230  
$2,461  
$7,131  
$1,230  
$2,761  
8-Aug-20  
16-Feb-20  
29-Mar-20  
46  
SL2019.0096  
$2,100  
$300  
51  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
3. Is interest payable under section 27(15)(b) of the Act, and if so, at what rate?  
[129] Interest may be awarded under section 27(15) of the Act when an operator fails to provide notice  
under section 27(14). The Applications stipulated that notice was provided under section 27(14). The  
submissions from the Owner did not contain a request for interest. Accordingly, the Panel declines to award  
interest.  
SECTION 30 MATTERS  
RELEVANT LEGISLATION:  
[130] This claim is made pursuant to the Surface Rights Act, section 30. The relevant sections of the Act  
are quoted within this Decision as needed.  
ISSUES  
[131]  
The issues before the Panel are as follows:  
a) Who are the owners or occupants that are parties to the surface leases with the Operator?  
b) What damage, if any, caused by or arising out of the operations of the Operator, has occurred  
to the land of the Applicants, other than the area granted to the Operator?  
c) What loss or damage, if any, to livestock or other personal property of the owner or occupant  
has arisen out of the operations of the operator?  
d) What time or expense was incurred by the owner or occupant in recovering any of the  
owners’ livestock that have strayed due to an act or omission of the operator, whether or not  
the act or omission occurred on the land that is subject to the surface lease?  
e) Does section 30(2) apply to this claim for compensation?  
f) Does section 30(3) of the Act apply to this claim for compensation, meaning the claim  
should be considered under section 25 of the Act rather than section 30?  
g) If loss or damage has occurred, what amount of compensation, if any, should be awarded to  
the Applicants?  
POSITION OF THE PARTIES  
[132] The Applicants are seeking compensation for damages under section 30 of the Act. They submit  
expenses were incurred for their labour, materials and the loss of use of fall grazing land, all of which  
arose from the Operator’s activities. The Applicants submit the boundary fencing on multiple sites created  
bottlenecks that have impeded their intensive farming and ranching activities. The Applicants further  
submit these impacts are beyond the adverse effects included in the POD evidence as there is no evidence  
the comparable lease agreements include similar issues to those in the damage claims.  
[133]  
The Applicants’ claims for damages and related Tribunal file numbers are as follows:  
a) (DD2019.0007). A claim for $22,500.00 under section 30(1)(c) for time and expense required  
to check and move cattle over the period June 2018 to November 2018. The Applicants claim  
the Operator’s fences on section 30-36-4-W4 have created bottlenecks causing cattle to go  
through fences, become separated from water sources and calves becoming separated from  
mother cows. These have made it necessary for the Applicants to check pastures twice a day  
in order to lead cattle to water and move calves back with mothers. The claim was based on  
two hours a day over the period June 2018 to November 2018 with an hourly rate of $75.00.  
This amounted to $150.00 per day over five months, (150 days) for a claim of $22,500.00.  
b) (DD2020.0042). A total claim of $6,750.00 under section 30(1)(c) for additional time  
required to check cattle over 90 days from June 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019 and 30 days in  
52  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
June 2020, due to the Operator’s fencing on Section 30-36-4-W4. The applicants claim 0.75  
hours was spent each day checking cattle in order to deal with cattle going through fences,  
calves separated from mothers and cattle separated from water sources. Less time was  
required during this period as cattle adapted to the new fences constructed around lease sites.  
The total claim is based on 120 days at .75 hours per day at $75.00 per hour. The hourly rate  
of $75.00 for a driver and pick-up truck was based on the rate the Operator is paying weed  
contractors.  
c) (DD2020.0043). A total claim of $21,865.00 under section 30(1)(a) for loss of use of pasture  
normally used for fall grazing and loss of the use of winter-feeding grounds due to the  
Operator constructing fences and leaving materials on the applicants’ pasture lands. This  
claim has four components:  
i) A claim of $6,150.00 for loss of grazing between November 3, and December 2,  
2019. The Operator’s fencing activities prevented cattle from using 108 acres on NW  
30-36-4-W4. This claim amount is based on replacing the lost grazing for 82 head at  
$2.50 per head per day for 30 days.  
ii) A claim of $6,150.00 for loss of grazing of 108 acres of fall grazing on NW 30-36-4-  
W4 between December 3, 2019 and January 3, 2020 due to the Operator’s fencing  
construction. The claim of $6,150.00 is based on the expense of replacing the lost  
grazing for 82 head at $2.50 per head per day for 30 days.  
iii) A claim of $2,127.50 for loss of grazing between November 26, 2019 and January 3,  
2020. The Operator’s fencing construction prevented cattle from using grazing on  
SW 31-36-4-W4. The claim of $2,127.50 is based on the expense of replacing the  
lost grazing for 23 head at $2.50 per head per head per day for 37 days.  
iv) A claim of $7,437.50 for loss of feeding grounds over the period January 4, 2020 to  
April 1, 2020. The Applicants submit the fencing construction activities required  
cattle to be relocated to winter feeding grounds further away from the yard site. The  
claim of $7,427.50 is based on an additional ½ hour per day of tractor time at  
$100.00 per hour for 85 days ($4,250.00), plus an additional ½ hour per day of  
personal time with a pick-up truck at $75.00 per hour for 85 days ($3,187.50).  
The Applicants noted the lease areas were not included in the loss of grazing acres. Further,  
the Applicants submit that the rate of $2.50 per head per day is higher as it is for fall  
grazing. As well the rate of $75.00 per hour for a driver and a pick-up truck is the same rate  
the Operator is paying weed contractors.  
d) (DD2020.0044). A claim for $38,354.00 under section 30(1)(a) for damages to the  
Applicants’ private fence. Specifically, replacing portions of the fence that were torn down  
by the Operator during their construction of the boundary fences around lease sites. The  
Applicants also claim the Operator used their private fences and gates over the period  
September 28, 2019 to January 3, 2020. This claim has two components:  
i) A claim of $35,154.00 for Applicants’ costs for materials and labour to construct new  
fences and develop new accesses to lands on NW 30-36-4-W4. Details supporting  
this amount are documented in an invoice from the Applicants to the Operator.  
ii) A claim of $3,200.00 for Applicants’ costs for materials and labour to build fence on  
53  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
SW 31-36-4-W4. Details for this amount are in an invoice submitted to the Operator  
by the Applicants.  
e) (DD2020.0045). A claim for $750.00 under section 30(1)(a) for picking up survey stakes in order  
to avoid equipment damage ($250.00) and fixing farm equipment ($500.00) damaged by survey  
stakes left on off-site lands. This claim is based on ½ day (4 hours at $75.00 per hour = $250.00)  
required to pick up garbage including materials left behind by fencing crews. Included in this claim  
is the use of the Applicants’ pick-up truck to haul the picked garbage away. As well, $250.00 for  
parts along with ½ day of labour (4 hours at $75.00 per hour = $250.00) for a total of $500.00 to fix  
the baler and swather damaged by materials left behind from fencing activities.  
f) (DD2020.0046). A claim of $6,500.00 under section 30(1)(a) for costs incurred in building a new  
road to the residence after the Operator’s fencing cut off an existing access road to the yard site.  
The Applicants submit developing the road was necessary due to the Operator stating they do not  
have shared access on any of the lease access roads. Further, there are no viable alternative routes  
owing to topography and the existence of lease sites including access roads. The claim is based on  
$4,800.00 for equipment (32 hours at $150.00 per hour), plus $700.00 for gravel and $1,000.00  
materials and labour to install gates.  
g) (DD2020.0047). A total claim of $3,600.00 under section 30(1)(a) for electrical disruptions caused  
by power outages caused by the Operator’s facilities. Cattle rubbing on power poles leading to the  
Operator’s lease sites cause vibrations that in turn cause power outages. The Applicants submit  
these outages are not limited to the yard site as they shut down the local network of power lines.  
This claim is based on six electrical disruptions in August 2019, ten in September 2019 and 14 in  
June 2020 at a cost of $120.00 each time. The Applicants submit the claim relates specifically to  
the problems created for milking the goats during power outages. The $120.00 cost per outage is to  
reflect the additional time required to hand milk the goats. The Applicants submit this claim is  
distinct from the general adverse effect and inconvenience experienced during power outages. It is  
noted the Operator has not installed rub guards to prevent cattle rubbing on power poles and  
creating the vibrations that cause electrical outages.  
h) (DD2020.0048). A claim of $6,152.00 under section 30(1)(a) for damages and costs due to the  
Operator trespassing by routes to access well sites, that were off-lease. The Applicants have  
provided photographic evidence of the damage that occurred off-lease due to rutting and weeds.  
The Applicants’ claim has three components:  
i)  
A claim of $2,525.00 for loss of use ($25.00) and adverse effect ($2,500.00 per year) for an  
area of 40 yards by 12 feet wide located between 13-30-36-4-W4 and 4-31-36-4-W4. The  
claim notes that repair work should be the responsibility of the Operator. The Applicants also  
noted the repair costs are estimated to be $1,000, however this amount was not part of the  
damage claim.  
ii) A claim of $1,542.00 for loss of use ($42.00) and adverse effect ($1,500.00) for an area 150  
yards by 12 feet wide located between 11-30-36-4-W4 to 14 & 15-30-36-4-W4. The claim  
notes that repair work should be the responsibility of the Operator. The repair costs for this  
area are estimated to be $2,000.00 however they are not part of the damage claim.  
iii) A claim of $2,085.00 for loss of use ($85.00) and adverse effect ($2,000.00) for an area 300  
yards by 12 feet wide located between 11-30-36-4-W4 and 7-30-36-4-W4. The claim notes  
that repair work should be the responsibility of the Operator. For this area the repair costs are  
54  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
estimated to be $5,000.00 which were not part of the damage claim.  
[134] The Operator submits the Applicants have failed to provide sufficient useful evidence and  
information to establish the losses claimed. Further, most if not all of the damages more appropriately fit  
under annual compensation as adverse effects and the rate for adverse effects established in the pattern  
evidence includes these types of impacts. Specific issues with respect to the individual damage claims are  
as follows:  
a) (DD2019.0007). There is no basis for the rate of $150.00 per day and evidence to support this  
measure. As well, the pattern evidence for adverse effect is inclusive of the additional time that is  
required by landowners/occupant for items such as checking on cattle around the disposition. The  
Applicants have not provided information on time spent checking cattle prior to the fencing.  
Accordingly, there is no means to assess the additional impact the fencing has on the cattle checking  
activity. Further, the Applicants have submitted cattle handling activities with calves separated from  
cows and cattle separated from water as general adverse effect issues which indicate these are  
ongoing events rather than one-time events.  
b) (DD2020.0042). There is no basis for the $75.00 per hour rate as this amount is excessive when farm  
labour rates run $25.00 per hour and the Tribunal typically awards $50.00 per hour. There is no  
specific evidence to support the rate or the days being claimed. The Applicants have already claimed  
for loss of use and adverse effect for these areas. These annual compensations for the dispositions  
are inclusive of additional time that is required by landowner/occupants for a number of items  
including time for checking cattle around the lease sites.  
c) (DD2020.0043). There is no evidence to support the rate of $2.50 per head per day for replacement  
of the lost grazing. It is not clear what the lands were used for and when. The suggested loss of  
grazing is not sustainable using a stocking rate of 0.50 Animal Unit Month (AUM)/acre which  
equates to 54 AUM for 108 acres when 1 cow=1 AU. The rate of $75.00 per hour for checking cattle  
with a pickup truck is excessive. The on-site inspection did not reveal the type of infrastructure that  
would normally be present in cattle feeding areas.  
d) (DD2020.0044). The Operator submits this is largely a civil matter between the parties as to which  
party is responsible for the costs of the Applicants’ fence. The Applicants’ invoice for fencing  
materials to the Operator is for constructing fences on the Applicants’ own land. There is no evidence  
to support the Operator having agreed to pay for the Applicants’ private fencing costs. As well there  
is no substantiation or support for the claimed costs such as receipts and time sheets for the fencing  
related costs. The only circumstances where the Operator removed the Applicants’ fences was where  
they blocked off accesses to lease sites.  
e) (DD2020.0045). The on-site inspection did not reveal any garbage or debris on the lease sites. Further  
there is no substantiation or support for the amounts in these claims in the form of time sheets or  
receipts. As well, garbage and dust were claimed as a factor under general adverse effects.  
f) (DD2020.0046). There are no details to support the costs claimed including invoices, or receipts. Of  
note is the use of rounded numbers which brings into question the reliability of the amounts claimed.  
The Operator disputes the claim that the yard site was cut off and this necessitated developing the  
new road as there are a number of alternative routes and no topographical impediments. The Operator  
should not have to bear the cost of the Applicants’ preferred access to the yard site.  
g) (DD2020.0047). There is no evidence to support the number of electrical disruptions and how long  
55  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
they lasted. As well, there is no evidence to support the amount claimed of $120.00 per incident. The  
alleged power disruptions are being claimed are a general adverse effect.  
h) (DD2020.0048). The claim for loss of use of $25.00 for .04 acre amounts to $625.00 per acre which  
is excessive. The claim of $2,500.00 for adverse effect is unreasonably high as this is similar to the  
rate requested for a built-up well site. There is no evidence that quantifies how much activity occurred  
on lease compared to off-lease. A break-down of costs has not been provided to go with the request  
that the Operator repair the three different sites noting the Applicants have not sought these as  
damage claims.  
DECISION:  
(a) Who are the owners or occupants that are parties to the surface leases with the Operator ?  
[135] The Panel finds the parties to the surface leases with the Operator are as follows:  
Ref.  
Section 30  
File  
Land  
Surface Lease  
References  
Owner  
Occupant  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
#3, 6, 7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 32,  
33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
48  
SW 30-36-4-W4  
SE 30-36-4-W4  
NE 30-36-4-W4  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
#4, 40, 42, 43, 44  
# 22  
Greg Latimer  
Jean Latimer  
Crown  
DD2019.0007  
#8, 14, 39  
Greg Latimer  
#3, 6, 7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 32,  
33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
49  
SW 30-36-4-W4  
SE 30-36-4-W4  
NE 30-36-4-W4  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
#4, 40, 42, 43, 44  
# 22  
Greg Latimer  
Jean Latimer  
Crown  
DD2020.0042  
#8, 14, 34, 39  
Greg Latimer  
DD2020.0043  
DD2020.0044  
DD2020.0045  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
#3, 6 ,7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28,  
32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41  
50  
51  
SW 31-36-4-W4  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
Crown  
Greg Latimer  
Greg Latimer  
# 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
#3, 6,7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28,  
32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41  
SW 31-36-4-W4  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
Crown  
# 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18  
#3, 6, 7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28,  
32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41  
Greg Latimer  
& Marva  
Coltman  
SW 30-36-4-W4  
SE 30-36-4-W4  
#4, 40, 42, 43, 44  
# 22  
Greg Latimer  
52  
Jean Latimer  
Crown  
NE 30-36-4-W4  
#8, 14, 39  
Greg Latimer  
56  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref.  
Section 30  
File  
Land  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
Surface Lease  
References  
Owner  
Occupant  
DD2020.0046  
# 24, 32, 33 & 45  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
53  
DD2020.0047  
#3, 6, 7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28,  
32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41  
Greg Latimer  
& Marva  
Coltman  
SW 30-36-4-W4  
SE 30-36-4-W4  
NE 30-36-4-W4  
SW 31-36-4-W4  
SE 31-36-4-W4  
#4, 40, 42, 43, 44  
# 22  
Greg Latimer  
Jean Latimer  
Crown  
54  
#8, 14, 39  
Greg Latimer  
Greg Latimer  
Greg Latimer  
Crown  
# 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18  
# 1, 10,  
Crown  
DD2020.0048  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
SW 31-36-4-W4  
i. refers to #15 & #19  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
Crown  
Greg Latimer  
Greg Latimer  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
NE 30-36-4-W4  
ii. refers to #14 & #24  
iii. refers to #3 & #22  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
Crown  
55  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
SE 30-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
Jean Latimer  
(b) What damages, if any, caused by or arising out of the operations of the Operator, has occurred to any  
land of the Applicants, other than the area granted to the Operator?  
[136] The Panel finds the following damage claims fall under section 30(1)(a) as they involve damage  
to land outside of the area granted to the Operator, and these damages arose out of operations of the  
operator.  
a) DD2020.0043 - the claim of $21,865.00  
b) DD2020.0046 - the claim of $6,500.00  
c) DD2020.0047 - the claim of $3,600.00  
d) DD2020.0048 - the claim of $6,152.00  
c) What damage, if any, for any loss or damage to livestock or other personal property of the owner or  
occupant have arisen out of the operations of the operator, whether or not the land on which the loss or  
damage occurred is subject to the surface lease?  
[137] The Panel finds the following damage claims fall under section 30(1)(b) as they involve loss or  
damage to livestock and other personal property of the owner or occupant arising out of operations of the  
operator.  
a) DD2020.0044 - the claim of $38,354.00  
57  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
b) DD2020.0045 - the claim of $750.00  
d) What damage, if any, is payable for any loss for time and or expenses incurred by an owner or  
occupant in recovering any of the owner’s livestock that have strayed due to an act or omission of  
the operator?  
[138] The Panel finds the following damage claims fall under section 30(1)(c).  
a) DD2019.0007 - the claim of $22,500.00  
b) DD2020.0042 - the claim of $6,750.00  
e) Does section 30(2) apply to the claims for compensation?  
[139] The Panel is satisfied there is no dispute among the parties that the applications were made within  
the required two years from the last date on which damage is alleged to have occurred.  
f) Does section 30(3) of the Act apply to claims for compensation, meaning the claim should be  
considered under section 25 of the Act rather than section 30?  
[140] Section 30(3) of the Act limits what the Tribunal can consider in a claim under section 30 and  
provides that “This section does not apply to a claim for compensation the amount of which may be  
determined by the Board [Tribunal] under s.25.”  
[141] This Panel takes guidance from Golden Coast Energy Corp. v Dake (2018 ABSRB 614) in which  
the Panel found that when claims are of a recurring or continuous nature in the form of adverse effect, s.  
30(3) applies and the matter cannot be considered under s. 30 of the Act.  
[142] The following applications under section 30 are dismissed pursuant to section 30(3) of the Act:  
a) DD2019.0007- the claim for $22,500.00 for the time and expenses for checking cattle  
b) DD2020.0042 - the claim $6,750.00 for the time and expense for checking cattle  
c) DD2020.0047 - the claim for $3,600.00 for inconvenience and nuisance of electrical  
disruptions  
d) DD2020.0048 - the claim for $6,152.00 for loss of use of pasture area and adverse effect  
related to inconveniences when moving equipment  
g) If damage has occurred, what amount of compensation, if any, should be awarded to the  
Applicants?  
[143] The Panel awards compensation for damages to the Applicants as follows:  
58  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref.  
Section 30  
File  
Payable to  
Award  
Greg Latimer & Marva  
Coltman  
50 DD2020.0043  
$7,630.38  
Occupant Greg Latimer  
Greg Latimer & Marva  
Coltman  
Greg Latimer  
52 DD2020.0045  
53 DD2020.0046  
$750.00  
Jean Latimer  
Occupant Greg Latimer  
Greg Latimer & Marva  
Coltman  
$3,250.00  
h)  
Are costs payable, and if so, what amount is payable and to whom?  
The Panel considered the Act, the Applicants’ submissions, the arguments, and the Tribunal  
[144]  
Rules in awarding costs. Costs in the amount of $23,599.22 are payable by the Operator jointly to the  
Applicants.  
REASONS FOR DECISION:  
(a)  
Who are the owners or occupants under the surface leases with the Operator with respect to  
Section 30(1)?  
[145] By email dated January 4, 2021, Bennett submitted the Lease Reference Nos. for each of the  
Damage Claims. Based on this submission, the Panel finds the owner or in the case of Crown Land, the  
occupant to be the party to the surface lease located on that land. These parties are presented in the  
following table.  
Ref.  
Section 30  
File  
Land  
Surface Lease  
References  
Owner  
Occupant  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
SW 30-36-4-W4  
#3, 6, 7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 32, Greg Latimer &  
33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41  
Marva Coltman  
#4, 40, 42, 43, 44  
Greg Latimer  
48  
DD2019.0007  
DD2020.0042  
SE 30-36-4-W4  
NE 30-36-4-W4  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
# 22  
Jean Latimer  
Crown  
#8, 14, 39  
Greg Latimer  
#3, 6, 7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 32, Greg Latimer &  
33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41  
Marva Coltman  
SW 30-36-4-W4  
SE 30-36-4-W4  
#4, 40, 42, 43, 44  
# 22  
Greg Latimer  
Jean Latimer  
49  
NE 30-36-4-W4  
#8, 14, 34, 39  
Crown  
Greg Latimer  
59  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
Ref.  
Section 30  
File  
Land  
Surface Lease  
References  
Owner  
Occupant  
DD2020.0043  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
#3, 6 ,7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28,  
32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41  
50  
51  
SW 31-36-4-W4  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
Crown  
Greg Latimer  
# 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18  
DD2020.0044  
DD2020.0045  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
#3, 6,7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28,  
32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41  
SW 31-36-4-W4  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
Crown  
Greg Latimer  
# 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18  
#3, 6, 7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, Greg Latimer  
32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41  
&
Marva  
Coltman  
SW 30-36-4-W4  
SE 30-36-4-W4  
#4, 40, 42, 43, 44  
# 22  
Greg Latimer  
Jean Latimer  
52  
53  
NE 30-36-4-W4  
#8, 14, 39  
Crown  
Greg Latimer  
DD2020.0046  
DD2020.0047  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
# 24, 32, 33 & 45  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
#3, 6, 7, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, Greg Latimer  
32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41  
#4, 40, 42, 43, 44  
# 22  
& Marva  
Coltman  
Greg Latimer  
SW 30-36-4-W4  
SE 30-36-4-W4  
NE 30-36-4-W4  
SW 31-36-4-W4  
SE 31-36-4-W4  
Jean Latimer  
Crown  
54  
#8, 14, 39  
Greg Latimer  
Greg Latimer  
Greg Latimer  
Crown  
# 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, 18  
# 1, 10,  
Crown  
DD2020.0048  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
SW 31-36-4-W4  
iv. refers to #15 & #19  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
Crown  
Greg Latimer  
Greg Latimer  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
NE 30-36-4-W4  
v. refers to #14 & #24  
vi. refers to #3 & #22  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
Crown  
55  
NW 30-36-4-W4  
SE 30-36-4-W4  
Greg Latimer &  
Marva Coltman  
Jean Latimer  
[146] Surge Energy Inc. is the Operator in each of the surface leases identified in the applications for  
damages. The Applicants’ Disclosure confirms the surface leases indicated as References 1 to 47 are  
60  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
dispositions in which Surge Energy is the Operator.  
(b)  
What damage, if any, caused by or arising out of the operations of the Operator, has occurred to  
the land of the Applicants, other than the area granted to the Operator?  
[147] Section 30(1)(a), requires the Applicants to demonstrate that the alleged damage was “caused by  
or arising out of” the operations of that Operator. The Panel understands that the words “caused by”  
require a direct, cause and effect relationship be established. The Panel also understands that the term  
“arising out of” was intentionally included in the Act by the Legislature to reflect a less than direct causal  
relationship. For compensation under section 30(1)(a) to be payable, it must be established that there is  
some relationship between the alleged damage to the land and the operations of the Operator.  
[148] The Applicants submitted claims damages falling under section 30(1)(a) for damages that  
occurred to the land. These claims for damages to the land were presented in written submissions  
including photographs. Greg Latimer expanded on their claim via testimony under Oath  
[149] The Panel finds the following claims fall under section 30(1)(a) of the Act:  
a) DD2020.0043. The claim of $21,865.00 was for damages in the form of loss of use of 108 acres of  
land due to the Operator’s fencing activities. The fencing activities of the Operator left suspended  
cables and survey stakes on the pasture lands. The Applicants claim these materials were hazardous  
to cattle and prevented the use of the pasture area.  
b) DD2020.0046. The claim of $6,500.00 was for damages in the form of building a new road to the  
yard site on NW 30-36-4-W4. The Applicants claim the Operator’s fences created barriers that  
prevented them from using existing routes to access the yard site. Building a new road to the yard  
site was an appropriate response to addressing these obstructions.  
c) DD2020.0047. The claim of $3,600.00 was for damages in the form of electrical disruptions that  
arose from cattle rubbing on power poles on the lands that were serving the Operator’s lease sites.  
d) DD2020.0048. The claim of $6,152.00 was for damages in the form of loss of use ($152.00) and  
adverse effect ($6,000.00) related to three rutted areas caused by the Operator using off-lease  
routes to access their well sites.  
(c) What damage, if any, for any loss or damage to livestock or other personal property of the owner or  
occupant arising out of the operations of the operator whether or not the land on which the loss or  
damage occurred is subject to the surface lease or right of entry order?  
[150] The Panel finds the following claims fall under section 30(1)(b) of the Act.  
a) DD2020.0044. The claim of $38,354.00 damages to the Applicants’ fence owing to the Operator  
removing a portion of the Applicants’ fence in order to gain access to well sites.  
b) DD2020.0045. The claim of $250.00 for mitigating damages to equipment and $500.00 for repairs  
to equipment caused by discarded survey stakes left on the lands.  
What damage, if any, for any loss for time and or expenses incurred by an owner or occupant in  
recovering any of the owner’s livestock that have strayed due to an act or omission of the operator  
whether or not the act or omission occurred on the land that is subject to the surface lease or right of  
entry order.  
[151] The Panel finds the following claims fall under section 30(1)(c) of the Act.  
a) DD2019.0007. The claim of $22,500.00 is for additional time and expense required to check and  
move cattle that strayed by going through fences, becoming separated from water sources and  
61  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
calves being caught in corners and becoming separated from mother cows. The time and expense  
incurred in handling cattle is attributed to the bottlenecks created by the Operator’s fences.  
b) DD2020.0042. The claim of $6,750.00 is for additional time and expense required to check and  
move cattle in areas with new fencing to put calves back with cows and ensure they have access to  
water.  
(d) Does section 30(2) apply to the claims for compensation?  
[152] Section 30(2) gives the Tribunal jurisdiction if (a) the application is made in writing to the  
Tribunal by a party to the dispute within two years from the last date on which the damage is alleged to  
have occurred, and (c) in the case of an application made on or after July 1, 2002, the amount claimed by  
the owner or occupant does not exceed $50,000.00.  
[153] The Panel finds the application for damages and loss claims was filed within two years from the  
last date on which the damage is alleged to have happened as indicated in the following table:  
Tribunal File  
Number  
Application Date  
Last Date Damage was  
Alleged to have Occurred  
DD2019.0007  
DD2020.0042  
DD2020.0043  
DD2020.0044  
DD2020.0045  
DD2020.0046  
DD2020.0047  
DD2020.0048  
March 27, 2019  
December 30, 2020  
December 30, 2020  
December 30, 2020  
December 30, 2020  
December 30, 2020  
December 30, 2020  
December 30, 2020  
May 31, 2019  
June 30, 2020  
April 1, 2020  
January 3, 2020  
June 30, 2020  
Unknown  
June 30, 2020  
November 30 2019  
[154] The claim for building the access road to the yard site (DD2020.0046) did not specify the dates  
for the three days over which the work took place. However, the Applicants submitted the road was  
necessary due to the Operator’s fencing of the lease sites on NW30-36-4-W4 which are indicated to have  
taken place in 2019.  
(e) Does section 30(3) of the Act apply to claims for compensation, meaning the claim should be  
considered under section 25 of the Act rather than section 30?  
[155] Section 30(3) of the Act limits what the Tribunal can consider in a claim under section 30 and  
provides that: “This section does not apply to a claim for compensation the amount of which may be  
determined by the Board [Tribunal] under s.25”. The primary purpose of this provision is to avoid  
overcompensation when the losses claimed are captured in the section 25 compensation factors; therefore,  
claims that are found to be an adverse effect on the remaining land are precluded under s. 30 of the Act.  
[156] Under section 25 of the Act, adverse effect and loss of use are key components of annual  
compensation which is reviewable every 5 years under s. 27 of the Act. The purpose of annual  
compensation under the Act is to compensate for those losses or damages which are of a recurring or  
continuing nature (see Golden Coast Energy Corp. v Dake 2018 ABSRB 614). Thus, if the Panel finds  
that the claim is of a recurring or continuing nature in the form of adverse effect, section 30(3) applies and  
the matter cannot be considered under section 30 of the Act.  
62  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[157] The Operator argued that claims for damages related to an Operator’s use of the lands granted  
under a surface lease are to be those that are not accounted for in annual compensation. The Operator  
further argued the majority of the damage claims seek additional compensation for impacts the Applicants  
have also claimed in their annual compensation requests.  
[158] The Applicants argued the impacts of the Operator’s fences are beyond the adverse effects  
included in the POD evidence as there is no evidence to support similar issues to those in the damage  
claims are being considered in the comparable lease agreements.  
[159] The Panel finds section 30(3) applies to the following claims for damages.  
a) (DD2019.0007) The Panel finds Applicants’ claim for $22,500.00 for checking and handling cattle  
relates to adverse effects that are of a recurring or continuing nature rather than a one time  
occurrence. As such, section 30 does not apply and this claim is dismissed. The Panel finds the  
claim for time and costs to manage cattle interacting with the fences occurred over an extended  
period of time. Further these factors of inconvenience and expense are addressed in the  
compensation for adverse effects awarded in the section 27 matters. The fences on 20 of the lease  
sites involved in this claim attracted additional compensation of $5,000.00 per year. Over the five  
year period this amounts to $25,000.00. To award an amount for damages under this claim would  
duplicate the compensation for adverse effects arising from fences.  
b) DD2020.0042. The Panel finds the Applicants’ claim for $6,750.00 for the time and expense  
required to check and move cattle due to the Operator’s fences on Section 30-36-4-W4 has already  
been addressed in the compensation for adverse effects awarded in the section 27 decision. As  
such, section 30 does not apply to this application and this claim is dismissed.  
c) (DD2020.0047) The Panel finds the claim of $3,600.00 is for inconvenience and nuisance that  
electrical disruptions have caused when milking goats. The Panel finds the circumstances of cattle  
rubbing on power poles and causing the disruptions are more likely than not of a recurring or  
continuing nature. Accordingly, the Panel finds these disruptions are adverse effect and section  
30(3) applies as compensation. This factor may be determined under section 25 of the Act. Section  
30 does not apply to the application and for this reason the claim is dismissed.  
d) DD2020.0048. The Panel finds the claim of $6,152.00 submitted by the Applicants specifically  
states the claim is for loss of use of the pasture area and adverse effect related to inconveniences  
when moving equipment. Accordingly the Panel finds the claim for compensation for these factors  
may be determined under section 25 of the Act and section 30 does not apply to the applications.  
Therefore, this claim is dismissed.  
[160] The Panel finds the claim for loss of use of pasture normally used for fall grazing and loss of the  
use of winterfeeding grounds (DD2020.0043) are not of a recurring or continuing nature and thus not of  
the type of adverse effect for which section 30(3) would apply. The Panel accepts the Applicants’  
submission that factors including the surveying of leases, along with the presence of suspended cables and  
survey stakes, as well as gates not completed, created specific rather than general circumstances in which  
the cattle could not be turned out for fall grazing on the NW 30-36-4-W4 and SW 31-36-4-W4.  
[161] The Panel finds the claims for having to repair the damages to the Applicants’ fence in  
DD2020.0044 are not of a recurring or continuing nature and thus not the type of adverse effect for which  
section 30(3) would apply. Repairing the fence was a specific rather than ongoing response to the  
Operator removing a portion of the Applicants’ fence.  
63  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[162] The Panel finds the claims for time required to pick up garbage (DD2020.0045) is a specific  
circumstance related to mitigating damages to equipment that might occur if the discarded material were  
left on the lands. The Panel is convinced by the Applicants’ submission that this claim is for time spent  
picking up discarded material such as survey stakes, and this action is distinct from the ongoing activity  
of picking up garbage around lease sites. This claim for is not a recurring matter or adverse effect for  
which section 30(3) would apply.  
[163] The Panel finds the claim for damages related to the parts and labour required to fix farm  
equipment (DD2020.0045) is not a recurring matter in the form of adverse effects in which section 30(3)  
would apply. The Panel is persuaded by the photographic evidence that the repairs to the baler were the  
result of materials being left behind after the Operator’s fencing activities.  
[164] The Panel finds the claim for expenses incurred in building a new road to the yard site and  
residence (DD2020.0046) are a non-recurring one-time activity and section 30(3) would not apply. The  
obstructions created by the Operator’s fences limit access to the yard site on NW 30-36-4-W4. The  
circumstances of having to develop an effective and efficient access to the yard site are unlikely to be of a  
continuous and ongoing nature that would attract annual compensation.  
(f) If damage has occurred, what amount of compensation, if any, should be awarded to the Applicants?  
[165] With respect to DD2020.0043 the Panel awards damages as follows:  
a) November 3, 2019- December 2, 2019: 82 head at $1.00 per head per day for 30 days =  
$2.460.00 (NW30-36-4-W4)  
b) December to January 3, 2020: 82 head at $1.00 per head per day for 30 days = $2,460.00  
(NW 30-36-4-W4)  
c) November 262019 to January 3, 2020: 23 head at $1.00 per head per day for 37 days =  
$851.00. (SW 31-36-4-W4)  
d) Additional time for winter feeding from January 4, 2020 to April 1, 2020: $0.00  
[166] There is no evidence to support the daily rate of $2.50 per head per day for pasture. The invoices  
for hay purchases are dated for late in the winterfeeding period. Further there is missing information to  
connect the hay purchases to the actual amounts of hay fed over the November to January period for  
which the loss of pasture is being claimed. The Panel finds the daily rate per head provided by the  
Operator’s expert witness and used above to be reasonable. There is no evidence to support the claim for  
the additional hours beyond what would normally be required for feeding and checking cattle during the  
winter feeding period. Accordingly there is no award for claim of additional time for winter feeding.  
[167] With respect to DD2020.0044 the Panel finds the Applicants have failed to provide sufficient and  
useful evidence to justify the award for damages being claimed. The evidence consists of the Applicants’  
own invoice without receipts or invoices from a supplier to confirm the quantity of fencing material  
purchased and the actual amount paid. Further there is no evidence to persuade the Panel the expenses  
being claimed are directly or indirectly related to repairing the portion of the fences removed by the  
Operator. The Applicants’ invoice to the Operator on which the claim is based indicates materials for sites  
on all of Section 30-36-4-W4 while the claim for damages indicates NW 30-36-4-W4 and SW 31-36-4-  
W4. The Panel finds the claimed amount is more likely than not for the overall construction of a private  
64  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
fence for goats and there is no evidence to support the Operator having agreed to pay for the Applicants’  
private fence. The damage claim is dismissed as the Applicants have failed to quantify the specific repairs  
to sections of their fence removed by the Operator.  
[168] With respect to DD2020.0045 the Panel awards $250.00 for picking up the garbage from the  
fencing construction and $500.00 to repair damage to farm equipment resulting from a discarded survey  
stake. The Panel is persuaded the time picking up garbage was specific to picking up discarded material  
from to the fence-building activities of the Operator and was to mitigate further damages to equipment.  
[169] With respect to DD2020.0046 the Panel finds there is no documentation including invoices or  
receipts to confirm the amounts claimed by the Applicants. This leaves the Panel with no means of  
determining whether the expenses are appropriate for the work. As noted by the Operator, the use of  
rounded numbers brings into question the reliability of the amounts being claimed. The damage claim is  
dismissed as the Applicants have failed to provide evidence to support the amount claimed.  
COSTS FOR BOTH S. 27 AND S.30 APPLICATIONS  
PARTIES’ POSITIONS  
[170] The Applicants requested the following costs and, in support of its request for costs, the  
Landowner submitted legal authorities.  
a. Costs for Representative  
Item  
Amount  
175.75  
Rate  
Total  
$26,362.50  
Preparation  
Travel Time  
Mileage  
$150.00/hour  
$25.00/hour  
$0.60/km  
22.75  
$568.75  
$1,365.00  
$531.34  
2275 kms  
Disbursements  
Sub-Total  
GST  
$28,827.59  
$1,441.38  
$30,268.97  
Total  
65  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
b. Time Sheet for Applicant (Greg Latimer)  
Item Amount  
Rate  
Total  
Year: 2019 Hours  
Preparation  
Sub-Total  
GST  
$6,000.00  
80  
$50.00/hour  
$4,000.00  
$10,000.00  
$500.00  
Total  
$10,500.00  
Total Cost Claim: $40,768.97  
[171] In reply, the Operator submitted a written argument and authorities. The Operator submitted that  
any award for costs made by the Tribunal should not exceed a total of $14,269.14 based on the following:  
a) 20% reduction for failing to adhere to the Rules and providing insufficient detail for proper  
scrutiny of the Costs Claim items;  
b) 30% reduction for the excessive amounts claimed given the quality and quantity of evidence  
presented by the Applicants, which also unreasonably lengthened the proceeding; and  
c) 15% reduction for Ms. Coltman’s participation, which unreasonably lengthened the  
proceeding further and did not contribute to the proceeding, as the entirety of her evidence  
was struck.  
In support of these reductions, the Operator cited Rule 31 of the Surface Rights Board Rules and argued:  
Providing Insufficient Detail for Proper Scrutiny of the Cost Claim Items  
a)  
Rules 31(1)(b) and 31(2)(g) - a detailed description of costs sought and reasonableness  
[172] The Applicants’ cost claim does not comply with Rules 31(1)(b) and 31(2)(g); specifically, a  
request for costs must include reasons to support the request, a detailed description of the costs sought,  
and any invoices or receipts for disbursements and expenses. The Operator submits that the Tribunal  
cannot properly determine whether many of the Representative’s cost and Applicants’ personal costs are  
directly and necessarily related to the proceeding or reasonably incurred without a meaningful level of  
detail in the Costs claim. A global reduction of 20% should be applied to the entirety of the Costs Claim.  
b)  
c)  
d)  
e)  
Rule 31(2)(c) – the contribution of the representatives and experts retained  
Rule 31(2)(d) – the conduct of a party in the proceeding  
Rule 31(2)(c) - whether a party has unreasonably delayed or lengthened a proceeding  
Rules 31(2)(g) – the reasonableness of any costs incurred  
66  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[173] The Operator submits the quantum of both the Representative’s costs and the Applicants’  
Personal Costs are excessive given the quality of the evidence produced to support the sought-after  
compensation rates, and the fact that the Applicants’ initial disclosure and claims themselves were  
constantly changed, which, combined with the vague nature of the evidence, unreasonably lengthened the  
proceedings. The Operator notes this occurred notwithstanding the participation of legal counsel until late  
November 2020 and the Operator has already paid $10,000.00 for costs incurred.  
[174] The Representative’s claim of 34.75 hours for the initial document disclosure is obviously  
excessive given the quality of the Applicants’ initial disclosure, as well as the contribution to the  
proceeding, and considering the Applicants’ Personal Costs include an additional 24 hours for compiling  
and reviewing evidence. The Operator argues that 58.75 hours to gather and compile the documents is  
clearly excessive given the largely simple and uncomplicated nature of the contents of the Applicants’  
initial document disclosure.  
[175] The Representative’s Cost Claim of 175.75 hours, or roughly 22 full 8-hour work days is clearly  
an excessive amount of time for this proceeding given the quality and nature of the disclosures and  
presentation at the hearing. The Operator submits this amount is particularly excessive considering the  
fact that Wilson Law Office was involved until November 2020, and a second lawyer appears to have  
been involved in some fashion as well, according to the Applicants’ written submission. The Applicants  
seek an additional 80 hours for the Representative’s and Mr. Wilson’s time in the Applicants’ Personal  
costs.  
Unnecessarily Delayed or Lengthened the Proceedings  
[176] The ever-changing nature of the Applicants’ claims may have unnecessarily delayed or  
lengthened the proceeding. The Operator submits the Applicants conceded that they did not seek evidence  
to support their claims until after the applications were filed. Evidence should have been prepared in  
advance of the applications being filed by the Applicants, which would have potentially allowed for a  
negotiated settlement and avoiding a hearing. The evidence filed by the Applicants was so lacking that it  
created significant uncertainties and confusion resulting in a lengthened proceeding.  
[177] The poor quality of the Applicants’ evidence which unreasonably lengthened the proceedings  
warrants a further global reduction in the Applicants’ Cost Claim by 30%.  
[178] Finally, the Operator submits that the failure by Ms. Coltman to be available for cross-  
examination caused delays and unreasonably lengthened the proceeding. Hearing time was taken up by  
the Tribunal to deliberate and rule on this issue after hearing brief submissions from both parties on the  
issue.  
[179] Since Ms. Coltman’s written and oral evidence were struck from the record in this proceeding,  
the Operator submits she will have no meaningful contribution to the resolution of this proceeding. There  
are multiple entries in the Representative’s Cost and the Applicants’ Personal Costs relating to Ms.  
Coltman only.  
[180] Multiple entries referring to phone calls between Mr. Latimer and Ms. Coltman are unclear in  
terms of what they refer to. The Operator submits they should be dismissed if they refer to calls between  
Mr. Latimer and Ms. Coltman. If they refer to calls between Mr. Latimer, Ms. Coltman and their  
Representative, there should be a significant reduction due to Ms. Coltman’s participation. The Operator  
argues that these entries, at least in part, refer to cost claims for discussions Mr. Latimer had with himself  
and it should not be responsible for the cost of such phone calls.  
67  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[181] Ms. Coltman’s participation in this proceeding unreasonably lengthened the proceedings and  
warrants a further global reduction in the Applicants’ Cost Claim by 15%.  
[182] In rebuttal, the Applicants argue that, if any party lengthened or complicated the proceedings, it  
was the Operator. The Operator declined the Applicants’ offer to settle loss of use rates at the rates  
suggested by the Operator.  
[183] The Applicants’ Representative was requested to assist previous legal counsel, Mr. Wilson, in the  
compilation of evidence, taking photographs, assist with the additional 45 applications for compensation  
reviews and damage claims. This role included helping in the determination of proper compensation  
levels and reviewing comparable leases.  
[184] There was no duplication between Mr. Wilson’s items and the Representative’s items. The  
Applicants submit that the Representative’s role is to suggest approaches the Applicants might take and  
was not in a position to ensure Ms. Coltman’s availability for cross-examination due to her work  
requirement with the goats.  
[185] The Applicants submit that Ms. Coltman was only ½ hour late for cross examination and notes  
some panels allow for witnesses to speak on each other’s behalf. Mr. Latimer could have answered  
questions posed to Ms. Coltman.  
[186] The legal citations submitted by the Operator are distinguishable from this proceeding as the  
Applicants have provided time sheets and receipts justifying the cost requests. The Applicants  
acknowledge the lack of detail in their 2019 cost claim while noting they had made the original five  
section 27 applications, one of the damage applications, attended a number of dispute resolution  
conferences (DRCs) and commenced their preparation for this proceeding.  
[187] The Applicants submit this proceeding has been complex with 50 files resulting in over 300 pages  
of evidence. Many of the leases are fenced or home quarters. There is large industry facility with H2S gas  
on the lands and the Operator has blocked farmyard access, locked gates and refused the Applicants  
access to surface leases and access roads.  
[188] The Applicants submit that the time sheet lists phone calls between them and either Mr. Wilson or  
their Representative. None of the entries refer to phone calls only between the Applicants.  
[189] The Applicants have followed the rules and note the Representative’s time sheet has been  
accepted many times by this Tribunal and other Boards.  
[190] The Applicants submit their evidence is more pertinent, accurate and more directly related to the  
actual farming operations occurring on the land then that of the Operator. They noted that the proceeding  
was shortened by not going through each lease in details.  
[191] The Applicants note the hearing was scheduled for three days and ended early and, as a result,  
Ms. Coltman’s late arrival for cross-examination did not result in a lengthened proceeding.  
[192] The Applicants submit the following addition to their Representative’s Cost Claim:  
June 14, 2021 1 hour  
Reading Operator Response  
Reading Operator Response  
June 15, 2021 1.5 hours  
68  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
June 16, 2021 5.25 hours  
June 17, 2021 5.5 hours  
Total 13.25 hours @ $150.00/hr = $1,987.50 plus GST  
Compiling Reply  
Compiling Reply  
ISSUES  
Are costs payable for both section 27 and section 30 applications and, if so, what amount is payable to  
whom and by whom?  
DECISION  
Costs in the amount of $23,599.22 are payable by the Operator to the Applicants.  
REASONS AND ANALYSIS  
[193] The Panel considered the Hearing, the submissions, the Act, the Surface Rights Board Rules, and  
Decision No. 2018/0068 in arriving at an award of costs.  
[194] The Panel took guidance from the Surface Rights Board Rules:  
31. Costs Award  
(1) The Board [Tribunal] may award costs to a party if the Board [Tribunal] is of the opinion  
that the costs are directly and necessarily related to the proceeding. A request for costs  
must include:  
a. reasons to support the request  
b. a detailed description of the costs sought  
c. copies of any invoices or receipts for disbursements or expenses  
(2) In making an order for the payment of a party’s costs, the Board [Tribunal] may consider:  
a. the reasons for incurring costs  
b. the complexity of the proceeding  
c. the contribution of the representatives and experts retained  
d. the conduct of a party in the proceeding  
e. whether a party has unreasonably delayed or lengthened a proceeding  
f. the degree of success in the outcome of a proceeding  
g. the reasonableness of any costs incurred  
h. any other factor the Board [Tribunal] considers relevant  
69  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[195]  
Rule 31(1) states that a request for costs must include: (a) reasons to support the request, (b) a  
detailed description of the costs sought, and (c) copies of any invoices or receipts for disbursements or  
expenses.  
[196]  
The Panel notes that the Applicants’ claim cost for hours, in the year 2019, on the Time Sheet for  
Greg Latimer, in the amount of $6,000.00, was a one-line entry without any detail on how this amount was  
arrived at.  
[197]  
The Panel finds that the Applicants did not provide sufficient, or any, detail to make an informed  
decision about whether the claim for Greg Latimer’s time in 2019 relate to the proceedings and whether  
they are reasonable. There is no detail regarding the nature of the activity, the time incurred, nor the billing  
rates. The Applicants noted that, “The Applicant acted responsibly in dealing with a complex case and with  
the exception of the 2019 landowner cost claim, has provided sufficient detail for the Tribunal to rule on  
costs.” The Applicants asked the Tribunal to use its discretion to rule on the claim for Greg Latimer’s time  
in 2019. The Panel finds that the time claimed in 2019 does not comply with the requirements of Rule 31.  
[198]  
The Applicants did not provide copies of any invoices or receipts for disbursements or expenses.  
The Panel finds that the disbursement costs of $531.34 for hotel expenses and assorted stationary/scanning  
costs and the $1,365.00 claim for mileage do not comply with the requirements of Rule 31(c).  
[199]  
The Panel is persuaded that, on the balance of probabilities, there was duplication between Mr.  
Wilson’s items and the Representative’s time sheet and Mr. Latimer’s time sheet entries. The Panel  
reviewed Mr. Wilson’s Statement of Account and notes the last entry was a telephone call from the  
Applicants’ Representative on November 19, 2020. The Panel notes the time sheet entry, for the  
Applicants’ Representative on November 19, 2020 states, “Phone call with Keith about taking over.” The  
Panel finds that the Applicants’ Representative’s time sheet entries between January 22, 2020 and October  
26, 2020 represent a duplication related to Mr. Wilson’s time. The Panel accepts the Applicants’  
Representative’s time for the period of November 25, 2020 to May 27, 2021 (140 hours) and November 25,  
2020 to May 27, 2021 travel time (7 hours). The Panel adopts the same reasons with respect to Mr.  
Latimer’s time sheet and accepts his time claimed of 55.75 hours for the period of November 27, 2020 to  
May 27, 2021.  
Claim  
Hours  
Rate  
Total  
Applicant’s Representative (Hours of  
Preparation)  
140  
7
$150.00/hour  
$21,000.00  
Applicant’s Representative’s (Time  
Travelling)  
$25.00/hour  
$50.00/hour  
$175.00  
Mr. Latimer’s Time Sheet  
Sub-Total  
55.75  
$2,787.50  
$23,962.50  
$1,198.13  
$25,160.63  
GST (5%)  
Total  
70  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[200] The Operator suggested that the Applicants’ Costs claim contains insufficient detail for the  
Tribunal to properly determine whether many of the Representative’s costs and Applicants’ personal costs  
are directly and necessarily related to the proceeding, or were reasonably incurred. The Operator  
requested a reduction of 20% for failing to adhere to the Rules and providing insufficient detail for proper  
scrutiny of the Costs Claim items. The Panel considered this argument in making its decision. While it is  
difficult for the Panel to determine whether a number of entries were necessary to support the request, as  
they are vague and routine, the billing rates of $150.00 per hour for the Representative and $50.00 per  
hour for Mr. Latimer are therefore accepted. The Panel takes guidance from ATCO Electric Ltd. v. R &  
Resource Services Ltd., 2018 ABSRB 68 [27]:  
In Apache Canada Ltd. v. Hughalta Farms Ltd. [14] (“Apache”), the Board [Tribunal] stated: The  
Panel was mindful of and subscribes to the overlying principle that landowners should not be out of  
pocket; however, this does not amount to a blank cheque. Lessors must act reasonably and  
responsibly.  
[201] The Panel finds that the Applicants’ Cost Claim for its response to the Operator’s Final Argument  
meets the requirements of Rule 31 and awards costs in the amount of $1,987.50 plus GST.  
Rule 31(2)(a) the reasons for incurring costs:  
[202] The Act provides a mechanism for compensation in cases where landowners and operators cannot  
agree on an appropriate rate of compensation. Section 39(4) of the Act states that: “The costs may include  
all preliminary costs of the respondent necessarily incurred in reaching a decision whether to accept the  
compensation offered by the operator.” Costs may include costs associated with the Dispute Resolution  
Conference, preliminary matters, preparing for and attending the hearing, written argument and costs  
submissions.  
[203] The Applicants argued that the Operator’s evidence suggests that compensation increases for  
many of the surface leases are in order but the Operator was not willing to engage in negotiations. The  
Applicants offered to settle Loss of Use rates at the rates suggested by the Operator and that offer was  
declined.  
[204] The Applicants submitted that the complexity of this proceeding involving 50 files was increased  
by the Operator’s actions such as blocking farmyard access, locking gates and refusing the Applicants  
access to surface leases and access roads.  
[205] The Operator argued that the ever-changing nature of the Applicants’ claims raised questions as  
to the veracity and credibility of the claims as well as procedural fairness concerns may have  
unnecessarily delayed or lengthened the proceeding.  
[206] In this instance, the evidence regarding loss of use and adverse effect was vital to the Panel’s  
determination.  
Rule 31(2)(b) the complexity of the hearing:  
[207] The subject matter of the hearing was very complex, involving 50 files, some fenced, some home  
quarters and some H2S gas issues.  
[208] The Panel was mindful of these points when making its determination on costs.  
Rule 31(2)(c) the contribution of the representatives and experts retained:  
71  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
[209] The Applicants’ representative originally requested to assist on the file by the Applicants’ legal  
counsel by helping to compile evidence, take photos, make the additional 45 applications for  
Compensation Reviews and Damage Claims and assist in the determination of compensation levels and  
comparables. Following the withdrawal of legal counsel, the Applicants’ representative shifted to a more  
formal role “representing” the Applicants on this proceeding.  
[210] The Panel is satisfied with the contribution of the representative.  
Rule 31(2)(d) the conduct of a party in a proceeding:  
[211] The Operator suggested that the Applicants delayed the proceedings through their failure to  
ensure Ms. Coltman was available for cross-examination and unreasonably lengthened the proceeding.  
The Applicants argued that Ms. Coltman’s availability for cross-examination by the Operator was  
difficult to ensure due to her work requirement with the goats. The Panel considered both arguments  
when making a decision.  
Rule 31(2)(e) whether a party has unreasonably delayed or lengthened a proceeding:  
[212] The Panel has already noted Ms. Coltman’s unavailability for cross-examination and the  
Operator’s argument that the evidence filed by the Applicants was so lacking that it created significant  
uncertainties and confusion resulting in a lengthened proceeding. The Panel considered Ms. Coltman’s  
unavailability when making its decision.  
Rule 31(2)(f) the degree of success in the outcome of a proceeding:  
[213] Based on the decision of this Panel, it is evident that both parties experienced some success in the  
proceeding. Even if the Applicants had not been successful, the Panel is satisfied the Applicants  
proceeded in a manner in which they were entitled to under the Act.  
Rule 31(2)(g) reasonableness of any costs incurred:  
[214] The Panel has already made comments about the reasonableness of the costs incurred.  
Rule 31(2)(h) any other factor the Board[Tribunal] considers relevant  
[215] The Panel has considered all necessary factors.  
SUMMARY OF COST AWARD  
[216] After considering the Act, Decision No. 2018/0068, other Tribunal decisions, the evidence, the  
arguments, and all of the factors listed in the Surface Rights Board Rules, the Panel is persuaded on  
balance:  
(a) To reduce the Cost Claim by $15,608.34 for failing to adhere to the Rules and providing  
insufficient detail for proper scrutiny of: Mr. Latimer’s cost claim for the year 2019; the  
Applicants’ Representative’s cost claim; and the duplication between Mr. Wilson’s  
Statement of Account and hours claimed by the Applicants’ Representative and Mr. Latimer.  
The Cost Claim is reduced from $40,768.97 to $25,160.63.  
72  
File Nos: See Appendix B  
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR0245  
(b) To reduce by 10% ($25,160.63 x 10% = $22,644.57) the Cost claim for the excessive  
amounts claimed given the quality and quantity of evidence presented by the Applicants,  
which also unreasonably lengthened the proceeding; and  
(c) To reduce by 5% ($22,644.57 x 5% = $21,512.34), the Cost Claim for Ms. Coltman’s  
participation, which unreasonably lengthened the proceeding further and did not contribute  
to the proceeding, as Ms. Coltman’s written and oral evidence was not considered.  
(d) To accept the Applicants’ Cost Claim of $1,987.50 plus $99.38 (GST) for their  
Representative’s time to prepare the Applicants’ response to the Operator’s final argument.  
On this basis, the Panel awards costs to the Applicants in the amount of $23,599.22.  
ORDERS  
[217] Orders will issue varying the rate of compensation on the following File Nos. as set out in this  
decision  
SL2021.0009; SL2021.0011; SL2021.0014; SL2021.0017; SL2021.0019; SL2021.0020;  
SL2021.0021; SL2021.0024; SL2021.0026; SL2021.0030; SL2021.0032; SL2021.0034;  
SL2021.0035; SL2021.0036; SL2021.0037; SL2021.0045; SL2021.0047; SL2021.0049;  
SL2021.0051; SL2021.0054; SL2021.0055; SL2021.0056; SL2021.0058; SL2021.0061;  
SL2021.0063; SL2021.0064; SL2021.0066; ;SL2021.0070; SL2021.0071; SL2021.0072;  
SL2021.0074; SL2021.0078; SL2019.0097; SL2019.0096  
[218] Orders will issue confirming the rate of compensation on File Nos. SL2021.0010;  
SL2021.0029; SL2021.0033 and SL2021.0057 as set out in this decision  
[219] An order will issue awarding costs payable by the Operator to the Applicants as set out in this  
decision.  
Dated at the County of Kneehill in the Province of Alberta on February 2, 2022.  
LAND AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TRIBUNAL  
__________________________________________  
Dennis Dey, Member  
73  
APPENDIX A  
EXHIBITS  
Exhibit  
Description  
Filed By:  
Number  
1.1  
1.2  
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
LPRT Documents Package Part 1  
LPRT Documents Package Part 2  
Operators Initial Document Disclosure  
Applicant’s Disclosure  
Operators Rebuttal Disclosure  
Applicant’s Rebuttal Disclosure  
Operator Amendment to Initial Disclosure  
Sam Denstedt reHDP  
Panel  
Panel  
Operator  
Applicants  
Operator  
Applicants  
Operator  
Operator  
Applicants  
Operator  
Applicants  
Applicants  
Operator  
Applicants  
Operator  
Greg Latimer Fencing Receipts  
Operator’s Aid to Cross  
Latimer Assignment  
9
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
Regrassing Permit  
Operator’s Final Written Argument  
Applicant’s Reply Argument  
Operator’s Reply to Applicants Costs Claim  
APPENDIX B  
Ref.  
1
s27 Application  
No.  
Landowner  
Crown  
Occupant  
Legal  
Acres  
4.88  
4.59  
2.23  
3.14  
3.45  
1.84  
2.85  
2.79  
2.66  
2.78  
2.29  
3.66  
2.87  
1.99  
3.87  
2.38  
1.51  
-3.3  
Document Date  
August 30, 1979  
April 26, 1979  
16-09-91  
SL2021.0009  
SL2021.0010  
SL2021.0011  
SL2021.0012  
SL2021.0014  
SL2021.0017  
SL2021.0019  
SL2021.0020  
SL2021.0021  
SL2021.0024  
SL2021.0026  
SL2021.0028  
SL2021.0029  
SL2021.0030  
SL2021.0032  
SL2021.0033  
SL2021.0034  
SL2021.0035  
SL2021.0036  
SL2021.0037  
SL2021.0039  
SL2021.0042  
SL2021.0045  
SL2021.0047  
Gregory E Latimer  
100/7-31-36-4 W4M  
Water Injection, Wellsite and Access Road  
2
Crown  
Gregory E Latimer  
100/3-31-36-4 W4M  
Water Injection, Wellsite and Access Road  
3
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
-
1D0/11-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite and Access Road  
4
Gregory Edward Latimer  
-
1C0/6-30-36-4 W4M  
14-12-91  
Producing Oil, Wellsite and Access Road  
5
Crown  
Gregory E Latimer  
100/4-31-36-4 W4M and 4-31-36-4 W4M Satellite Suspended  
Oil, Wellsite, Access Road, Satellite  
19-12-91  
6
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
-
-
104/12-30-36-4 W4M  
Suspended Oil, Wellsite  
19-12-91  
7
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
100/14-30-36-4 W4M  
July 7, 1992  
October 24, 1992  
31-12-93  
Producing Oil, Wellsite and Access Road  
8
Crown  
Gregory E Latimer  
Gregory E Latimer  
100/10-30-36-4 W4M  
Water Injection, Wellsite and Access Road.  
9
Crown  
100/6-31-36-4 W4M  
Observation, Wellsite and Satellite  
10  
11  
12  
13  
14  
15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
SE 31 - Crown SW 31 - Crown  
Crown  
SE 31 - Gregory E Latimer SW  
31 - Gregory E Latimer  
102/7-31-36-4 W4M, 104/7-31-36-4 W4M  
Suspended and Producing Oil, Wellsite  
March 11, 1994  
July 12, 1994  
July 25, 1994  
July 25, 1994  
March 12, 1992  
21-09-94  
Gregory E Latimer  
Gregory E Latimer  
104/4-31-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
Crown  
100/8-31-36-4 W4M  
Water Injection, Wellsite  
SE 31 - Crown SW 31 - Crown  
SE 31 - Gregory E Latimer SW  
31 - Gregory E Latimer  
102/6-31-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
Gregory E Latimer  
1A0/14-30-36-4 W4M, 102/15-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing and Suspended Oil, Wellsite  
Crown  
Gregory E Latimer  
105/4-31-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite and Access Road  
Crown  
Gregory E Latimer  
103/6-31-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
21-09-94  
Crown  
Gregory E Latimer  
104/6-31-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
30-11-94  
Crown  
Gregory E Latimer  
107/4-31-36-4 W4M  
March 8, 1995  
March 12, 1992  
April 7, 1995  
June 15, 2015  
22-11-11  
Water Injection, Wellsite and Access Road  
Gregory Edward Latimer  
Gregory Edward Latimer  
Jean E Latimer  
Jean E Latimer  
Jean Elizabeth Latimer  
-
-
-
-
-
-
1D0/13-30-36-4 W4M  
-3.3  
Suspended Oil, Wellsite and Access Road  
102/13-30-36-4 W4M  
3.37  
2.2  
Producing Oil, Wellsite and Access Road  
102/8-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite and Access Road  
100/7-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
2.99  
3.36  
2.05  
100/5-30-36-4 W4M  
April 26, 1993  
15-11-01  
Producing Oil, Wellsite and Access Road  
SW 30 - Gregory Edward Latimer NW  
30 - Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
105/11-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite.  
25  
26  
SL2021.0049  
SL2021.0051  
Gregory Edward Latimer  
-
-
102/6-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite and Access Road  
3.2  
15-11-01  
SW 30 - Gregory Edward Latimer NW  
30 - Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
1B2/12-30-36-4 W4  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
2.93  
January 8, 1997  
27  
28  
29  
30  
31  
32  
33  
34  
35  
36  
SL2021.0054  
SL2021.0055  
SL2021.0056  
SL2021.0057  
SL2021.0058  
SL2021.0061  
SL2021.0063  
SL2021.0064  
SL2021.0066  
SL2021.0070  
Crown  
Gregory E Latimer  
102/9-30-36-4 W4Mw  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
2.99  
2.4  
21-12-95  
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
-
103/14-30-36-4 W4M  
Water Injection, Wellsite  
January 8, 2001  
February 23, 1977  
March 12, 1992  
March 12, 2011  
April 26, 1993  
July 7, 1992  
July 7, 1992  
16-09-91  
Crown  
Crown  
Crown  
Gregory E Latimer  
100/15-30-36-4 W4M and 102/16-30-36-4 W4M  
D&A and Suspended Oil, Wellsite and Access Road (NE 30)  
3.81  
4.02  
2.81  
-2.86  
2.07  
2.15  
1.22  
2.47  
Gregory E Latimer  
102/3-31-36-4 W4M  
Suspended Gas, Wellsite and Access Road  
Gregory E Latimer  
100/9-30-36-4-W4M & 100/16-30-36-4-W4M  
Abandoned Oil, Wellsite and Access Road  
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
-
102/11-30-36-4 W4M  
Water Disposal, Wellsite  
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
-
100/11-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
Crown  
Gregory E Latimer  
103/15-30-36-4 W4M  
Suspended Oil, Wellsite and Header  
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
-
-
1B0/12-30-36-4 W4M  
Abandoned Oil, Wellsite Addition  
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
103/11-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
19-11-91  
Ref.  
37  
38  
39  
40  
41  
42  
s27 Application  
No.  
Landowner  
Occupant  
Legal  
Acres  
1.65  
2.03  
2.4  
Document Date  
21-12-95  
SL2021.0071  
SL2021.0072  
SL2021.0074  
SL2021.0076  
SL2021.0078  
SL2019.0088  
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
-
-
1A0/13-30-36-4 W4M  
Suspended Oil, Header  
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
1D2/13-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
21-12-95  
Crown  
Gregory E Latimer  
102/10-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite  
February 6, 2006  
August 3, 2006  
July 20, 2012  
July 7, 1992  
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
-
-
-
102/5-30-36-4 W4M (Portion SW 30)  
Producing Oil, Portion of Wellsite  
2.11  
-0.58  
Gregory Edward Latimer, Marva  
Coltman  
12-30-36-4 W4M Valve Site  
Gregory Edward Latimer  
SW ¼-30-36-4-W4M  
Pad Site: 2.73  
Pad Site Addition:  
0.06  
100/4-30-36-4 W4M, 1S0/4-30-36-4 W4M  
1C0/4-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Suspended Oil and Producing Oil. Wellsite  
Total: 2.79  
43  
44  
45  
46  
SL2019.0089  
SL2019.0090  
SL2019.0097  
SL2019.0096  
Gregory Edward Latimer  
Gregory Edward Latimer  
Gregory Edward Latimer  
-
-
-
-
SW ¼-30-36-4-W4M 1A0/4-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite and Access Road  
Well Site: 2.78  
Access Road:  
0.27  
March 12, 1992  
July 25, 1994  
August 8, 1991  
Total: 3.05  
SW ¼-30-36-4-W4M 102/4-30-36-4 W4M  
Producing Oil, Wellsite and Access Road  
Well Site: 2.67  
Access Road:  
0.23  
Total: 2.90  
NW ¼-30-36-4-W4M 12-30-36-4 W4M  
Battery  
Total: 7.23  
Breakdown  
unknown  
NE 21 - Gregory Edward Latimer SE 21  
- Gregory Edward Latimer  
NE ¼-21-36-5-W4M 1D0/10-21-36-5 W4M  
Abandoned well  
NE 21  
NE 21  
February 16, 1989  
SE 21  
Well Site: 2.56  
Access Road:  
1.54  
March 29, 1989  
Total: 4.10  
SE 21  
Access Road -  
1.03  
47  
SL2019.0105  
Gregory Edward Latimer  
-
SW ¼-30-36-4-W4M 100/3-30-36-4 W4M  
Abandoned Water Injection, Wellsite and Access Road  
Well Site: 2.78  
Access Road:  
0.47  
July 7, 1992  
Total: 3.25  
S30 Application  
No.  
48  
49  
DD2019.0007*  
See application and  
supporting  
100/4-30-36-4 W4M  
1 S0/4-30-36-4 W4M  
1 C0/4-30-36-4 W4M  
1A0/4-30-36-4 W4M  
102/4-30-36-4 W4M  
Multiple  
Multiple  
Gregory E. Latimer  
documents  
DD2020.0042  
NE 1/4 30: Crown  
30-36-4-W4M  
NW 1/4 30: Gregory Edward Latimer,  
Marva Coltman  
Bottleneck Issue  
SE 1/4: Jean E. Latimer  
SW 1/4: Gregory E. Latimer  
50  
51  
52  
DD2020.0043  
DD2020.0044  
DD2020.0045  
NW 1/4 30: Gregory Edward Latimer,  
Marva Coltman  
SW 1/4 31: Crown  
NW quarter of30-36-04W4M and SW 31-36-04W4M Loss of  
Use of Land  
NW 1/4 30: Gregory Edward Latimer,  
Marva Coltman  
SW 1/4 31: Crown  
NW 30-36-04W4M and SW 31-36-04W4M  
Fencing Issue  
NE 1/4 30: Crown  
30-36-04W4M  
NW 1/4 30: Gregory Edward Latimer,  
Marva Coltman  
Picking up garbage  
SE 1/4: Jean E. Latimer  
SW 1/4: Gregory E. Latimer  
53  
54  
55  
DD2020.0046  
DD2020.0047  
DD2020.0048  
NE 1/4 30: Crown  
NW 1/4 30: Gregory Edward Latimer,  
Marva Coltman  
SE 1/4: Jean E. Latimer  
SW 1/4: Gregory E. Latimer  
30-36-04W4M  
Building new road and snow fence  
NE 1/4 30: Crown  
NW 1/4 30: Gregory Edward Latimer,  
Marva Coltman  
SE 1/4: Jean E. Latimer  
SW 1/4: Gregory E. Latimer  
30-36-04W4M  
Electrical Disruption  
NE 1/4 30: Crown  
NW 1/4 30: Gregory Edward Latimer,  
Marva Coltman  
30-36-04W4M and South l/2 of Section 31-36-04W4M A/R  
trespass, 105/4-31 and 1D0/13-30  
SE 1/4: Jean E. Latimer  
SW 1/4 31: Crown  
SW 1/4: Gregory E. Latimer  


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission