. 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 Operators 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 Operators 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 Applicantsinitial 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 Operators 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 Operators 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 Applicantsclaim 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