File No. RR2018.0016 (+3)
Decision No. LPRT2022/SR1243
the initial taking, and compensation would only be warranted if the Landowners could demonstrate an effect
on the reversionary interest of the land”. Further, in Whitelock, the Panel noted that as regards loss of use,
“the Board is not persuaded that an increase in loss of use would occur… the Landowners did not have the
use of the 3.54 acres in question. If they did not have it, they cannot lose it, and no additional compensation
can be due” (writer’s emphasis). The Tribunal in Whitelock concluded only incremental adverse effect,
nuisance and inconvenience are compensable. This conclusion was confirmed upon appeal to the Court of
Queen’s Bench by Mr. Justice E.P. MacCallum who, as regards adverse effect, noted the monitoring of the
two sites was done by the same operator at the same time which “results in no more impact than would be
experienced if only one site existed”.
[53]
More recently, in Bonavista Energy Corporation v Alberta (Environment and Parks), 2020 ABSRB
419, the Panel opined on the consequence of an overlapping RoE. The Panel found its challenge was to
ensure that only incremental adverse effect, nuisance, inconvenience and noise were compensable and
found that the RoE did not cause incremental loss, and compensation was not awarded for this item.
Likewise, the Panel found that loss of use would only be warranted if it could be demonstrated the RoE
resulted in an incremental loss of use beyond any loss currently arising (no compensation was payable for
loss of use, although compensation for adverse effect was paid, based on a finding that there was
incremental nuisance and inconvenience).
(b) What compensation, if any, is payable for workspace?
[54]
The Owner seeks $3,000.00 for temporary workspace (“TWS”) the Panel did not receive evidence
in regards to this claim. The Operator asserts that the Owner is not entitled to compensation for TWS,
because the RoE does not delineate land for TWS; as a result, the Panel has no jurisdiction to award
compensation for this item.
[55]
The Panel notes that the ROE Order No. 1598/2019 provides for 1.15 acres of land, delineated in
the attached survey (outlined in green, see HDP 428). TWS is not included and therefore the Panel declines
this claim.
(c) What compensation is payable for land value?
[56]
Certificate of Title 942 028 446 indicates the subject land was transferred to the Owner subsequent
to the granting of the Original RoE. However, as noted, the Original RoE has been amended to name the
Owner, it has also been amended to name the Operator. AER documentation confirms that Bonterra is the
operator who holds the license to the wellsite on the padsite taken in the Original RoE (as well as RoE
1597/2019). The Panel further notes that RoE Order No. 1598/2019 was granted to the Operator for or
incidental to the construction, operation or removal of a pipeline , whereas Order No. E1579/83 was granted
to for operations for or incidental to the drilling for and production of petroleum and natural gas, RoE
1597/2019 is for the purpose, as noted, of drilling three wells, the construction of the pipeline in RoE
1598/2019 was to connect the wells to existing infrastructure. The Panel finds, in consideration of the
foregoing, the purposes for which the Rights of Entry were taken, are related. Evidence was not led on
compensation paid for Rights Taken but the Panel finds it more likely than not, based on the Act, that
compensation was paid for Rights Taken on the Original RoE and notes that Order No. 0482/2019 specifies
that Order No. E1581/83, as amended, “…confirmed the agreed amount of compensation payable”. The
Panel therefore finds, in consideration of section 16 of the Act, and the principles enunciated in the above
caselaw and Tribunal decisions, and the submissions of the Operator which were not rebutted by the Owner,
that the interest in the overlapping area of the Site has been exhausted such that compensation for land value
on RoE 1598/2019 is limited to the fresh or new land taken, of 0.90 acres.
[57]
The Panel has previously determined there is a PoD from $2,200.00 (14 agreements) to $2,250.00
(16 agreements), and (b) the affected area is 0.90 acres. The Panel determines compensation for land granted
Page 12