THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT, again . . .

THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT, again . . .

Postby Oscar » Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:37 am

QUOTE: ""In particular, the ERCB, whose mission is to develop oil and gas "in a manner that is fair, responsible and in the public interest," was prepared to argue that it has "no duty of care" to a landowner with contaminated water.""

Landmark fracking lawsuit starts with twist in Alberta

[ http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Rights- ... ngLawsuit/ ]

By Andrew Nikiforuk April 27, 2012 12:52 am

DRUMHELLER, ALBERTA: A landmark lawsuit against an energy giant and two Alberta government regulatory agencies concerning water well contamination by hydraulic fracturing started with an unusual twist in Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench yesterday.

Judge B. L. Veldhuis began the proceedings in a Drumheller courtroom attended by 20 landowners from across the province by admitting that she was going to do something unexpected: she then asked for a shorter statement of claim.

Jessica Ernst, a 54-year-old oil patch consultant and scientist from Rosebud, Alberta, is suing EnCana, one of the continent's largest unconventional gas producers, for negligence causing water contamination and the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), the province's energy regulator, for breaching the Charter of Rights.

The lawsuit alleges that the regulator "banished" Ernst, now a celebrated landowner in the province, from contact with the board after she publically spoke out about water well contamination and noise pollution.

In addition, the $33-million lawsuit alleges that Alberta Environment, one of two agencies responsible for groundwater protection, failed to uphold its regulatory responsibilities.

The lawsuit effectively puts on trial the practice and regulation of hydraulic fracturing: the controversial blasting of coal, oil and shale formations with toxic chemicals, sand and water.

North America's fracking boom has increased natural gas supplies, lowered gas prices and weakened the bottom line of many gas companies. The poorly studied technology, which can also cause earthquakes, has sparked moratoriums, debates and regulatory investigations from New Brunswick to Wyoming due to concerns about groundwater contamination, air pollution and methane leaks.

Neither EnCana nor the Alberta regulators have fielded statements of defence on shallow fracking incidents that took place eight years ago during a frenzied coal-bed methane drilling boom in central Alberta.

Instead, lawyers for both EnCana and the ERCB came prepared to argue a variety of motions to dismiss the entire case or strike out entire paragraphs from Ernst's highly readable 73-page statement of claim as "inflammatory" and "embarrassing."

In particular, the ERCB, whose mission is to develop oil and gas "in a manner that is fair, responsible and in the public interest," was prepared to argue that it has "no duty of care" to a landowner with contaminated water.

Toronto lawyer Murray Klippenstein, who represents Ernst, agreed with the judge's request and says he will submit a shorter claim within a month. (Klippenstein, a no-nonsense litigator on critical justice issues, successfully represented the family of slain First Nation activist Dudley George against the Ontario government of Mike Harris.)

"We know that EnCana and the Board and the government did not like the detailed description of Jessica's case and were trying very hard to have parts removed," explained Klippenstein outside the courtroom.

"The judge wanted a more concise description and that can be easily provided."

The lawsuit alleges that an experimental and shallow drilling and fracking program into coal seams contaminated Ernst's water source with so much methane that she could light her tap water on fire.

"EnCana refused to address Ms. Ernst's concerns or answer her questions; failed to investigate Ms. Ernst's water contamination problem; refused to disclose the chemicals used in fracturing, drilling and servicing operations," adds the claim.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has linked fracking activity by EnCana to the contamination of groundwater in Pavillion, Wyoming. EnCana, which is losing money and shareholder confidence due to its extreme dependence on industrial scale shale gas plays, calls the EPA investigation flawed.

Landowners at the courthouse said they came to support Jessica Ernst as a champion of the public interest and groundwater protection.

"Jessica is doing what we all want to do but don't have the balls to stand up and do," said Shawn Campbell, a Ponoka area rancher who also has water contamination problems related to fracking. "Water is the key issue. If you don't have clean water what are you going to do? You won't live long."

Dairy farmer Jan Slomp, a board member of the National Farmer's Union, which has called for a moratorium on fracturing, also attended the first day of the trial because of his admiration for Ernst's courage.

"I'm here to support Jessica. This issue needs to be brought into the public arena. People are concerned and know something is wrong." [. . . . ]

- - - -

Andrew Nikiforuk wrote the first stories on hydraulic fracturing and the Ernst Case for ROB Magazine and Canadian Business magazine.



= = = = = = = = =


MORE INFO ON FRACKING:

[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/ ]

[ http://www.frackingcanada.ca/ ]

[ http://www.canadians.org/water/issues/f ... index.html ]

[ viewforum.php?f=31 ]
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

The Lawsuit: ERNST VERSUS ENCANA

Postby Oscar » Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:34 am

The Lawsuit: ERNST VERSUS ENCANA
http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/the-lawsuit

UPDATE / October 9, 2013

PRESS ADVISORY

Chief Justice rejects Alberta government’s attack on Rosebud water contamination case – but dismisses case against Alberta’s key energy regulator, the ERCB.

The practice of hydraulic fracturing – injecting fluids (gases or liquids, sand and toxic chemicals) under high pressure to shatter deep and shallow rock to stimulate hydrocarbons to flow – has raised serious economic, political, legal, health and environmental issues around the world.

In a judgment recently released by the Alberta Court of Queen’s bench, [ http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/10/09/AB-Re ... king-Suit/ ]
Chief Justice Neil Wittmann ruled on the first skirmishes in a landmark multi-million dollar claim by Jessica Ernst against EnCana, Alberta Environment and the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) regarding water contamination caused by fraccing.

Key parts of the judgment include:

The court rejected the Government of Alberta’s attempt to attack portions of the lawsuit, thereby paving the way for the claim against the Government of Alberta to proceed.

Justice Wittmann agreed there were valid claims asserted against the ERCB for breaching Ms. Ernst’s fundamental and constitutional right to freedom of expression. The court also found “the ERCB cannot rely on its argument on the Weibo eco-terrorism claim, in the total absence of evidence. There is none.” However, the court found that the Alberta government had granted complete immunity to the ERCB for all legal claims, including for breaches of constitutional rights.

Chief Justice Wittmann ruled the ERCB does not owe any legally enforceable duties to protect individual landowners from the harmful effects of fraccing, after the ERCB argued in court it had total immunity for “not only negligence, but gross negligence, bad faith and even deliberate acts,” and therefore Albertans simply could not sue the ERCB, no matter how badly they were harmed by the ERCB’s acts. Ms. Ernst was ordered to pay the ERCB’s costs.

Ms. Ernst has instructed her legal counsel to appeal the decision to dismiss the lawsuit against the ERCB.

“I think Albertans will be disturbed to learn that their energy regulator has total and blanket immunity, even in cases where the regulator has breached the fundamental and constitutional free speech rights of a landowner,” said Murray Klippenstein, lead legal counsel for Ms. Ernst.

“It is very worrying that citizens are unable to hold the energy regulator accountable for failing to protect citizens from the harmful impacts of fraccing,” said Cory Wanless, co-counsel for Ms. Ernst. “If the energy regulator won’t protect citizens, who will?”

For more information, including Encana’s Statement of Defence, refer below: -30-

CONTACT:

Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors:

Murray Klippenstein
(416) 598-0288 or (416) 937-8634

Cory Wanless
(416) 598-0288 or (647) 886-1914

Jessica Ernst: 1-403-677-2074
contact@jessicaernst.ca

- - - - - -

France upholds constitution:
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/frances ... energy-llc ]

- - - - -

Alberta spits on it:
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/gerard- ... sica-ernst ]

- - - - -

Alberta Energy Regulator Given Immunity in Landmark Fracking Suit
[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/10/09/AB-Re ... king-Suit/ ]

'I have no choice but to appeal', says plaintiff Jessica Ernst, who alleges industry polluted her water.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, October 9, 2013, TheTyee.ca

Alberta's chief justice has ruled that a landmark lawsuit against the Alberta government and the energy giant Encana Corporation over groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracking can finally proceed to court.

But in the same lengthy 41-page ruling,
[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/10/09/AB-Re ... king-Suit/ ] Justice Neil Wittman also struck the province's energy regulator from the lawsuit.

His decision found that the Alberta government had granted statutory immunity to the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) from all legal claims.

In other words, the board cannot be sued when oil and gas activities regulated by the agency poison livestock, devalue property, sicken landowners or contaminate ground or surface waters.

The lawsuit, filed by oil patch environmental consultant Jessica Ernst, alleges that Encana drilled and fracked shallow coal bed methane wells directly in the local groundwater supply between 2001 and 2004 near Rosebud, Alberta, polluting Ernst's water well with enough toxic chemicals and methane to make it flammable.

In addition, Ernst's claim details how Alberta's energy regulators -- the ERCB (now called the Alberta Energy Regulator) and Alberta Environment -- "failed to follow the investigation and enforcement processes that they had established and publicized" despite direct evidence of industry-caused pollution and public admissions that shallow fracturing puts groundwater at risk.

The regulator is 100 per cent funded by industry and directed by a former oil lobbyist and Encana vice president, Gerard Protti. Landowners generally regard the AER as a reactive agency that works for an industry-friendly government and that now garners one-third of its revenue from the extraction of hydrocarbons.

MORE:

[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/10/09/AB-Re ... king-Suit/ ]

- - - - -

Encana Files Defence in Lawsuit with Fracking Folk Hero
[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/09/20/Encan ... g-Lawsuit/ ]
Landmark case could change how shale gas industry is regulated in Canada.

Alberta's Top Judge to Hear High Profile Fracking Case
[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/29/Alber ... king-Case/ ]
Flaming tap water lawsuit by Jessica Ernst faced delay after previous judge promoted.

Fracking: Feds Throw Wrench in High Profile Lawsuit
[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/02/22/BC-Fracking-Lawsuit/ ]
Judge suddenly promoted; plaintiff Ernst sees strategy to 'delay and exhaust.'

Read more [ Links at original URL above ]:
Energy, Rights + Justice, Labour + Industry, Environment
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: ENCANA GOES TO COURT!

Postby Oscar » Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:06 pm

ERNST v. ENCANA CORPORATION - THE LAWSUIT

[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/the-lawsuit ]

Stay up-to-date with this case by checking the above-noted URL often.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT!

Postby Oscar » Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:06 pm

Court rules that Alberta Environment can be sued for failing to properly investigate and remediate water contamination near Rosebud

[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/the-lawsuit ]

The Lawsuit - NEW! PRESS ADVISORY

ROSEBUD, AB, Nov 10, 2014 /CNW/ – The Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta has ruled that Alberta Environment can be sued for failing to properly investigate and remediate water contamination allegedly caused by Encana’s hydraulic fracturing activities near Rosebud, Alberta.

The judgment:
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/wp-cont ... awsuit.pdf ]

“This is a big victory for water and for all Albertans. The decision means that landowners can stand up and hold governments and regulators to account if they fail in their duty to properly investigate environmental contamination” said Rosebud resident and plaintiff Jessica Ernst.

Alberta Environment argued in court it didn’t owe a “private duty of care” to individual landowners when investigating causes of groundwater contamination that left wells so polluted with methane and other contaminants that the water could (and still can) be lit on fire. In other words, the regulator argued that individual landowners couldn’t try to hold government legally responsible for negligent investigations of environmental contamination, no matter how faulty. The Court disagreed. Chief Justice Wittmann ruled that “[w]hile this is a novel claim, I find there is a reasonable prospect Ernst will succeed in establishing that Alberta owed her a prima facie duty of care.”

In addition to ruling in favour of Ms. Ernst on all key points, Chief Justice Wittmann took the rare step of ordering the government to pay triple Ms. Ernst’s legal costs for the improper manner in which her claim was attacked.

“Ernst was wholly successful in responding to this Application. … These arguments could have been raised as part of Alberta’s first application, but were not. Ernst was put to the time and expense of two applications, not one. … As a result of these considerations Ernst shall have her costs against Alberta fixed at triple [the regular rate]”

SOURCE Klippensteins

For further information:

Jessica Ernst: (403) 677-2074, contact@jessicaernst.ca ;

Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors:
Murray Klippenstein, (416) 598-0288 or (416) 937-8634;
Cory Wanless, (416) 598-0288 or (647) 886-1914


= = = = = =


Judge Rules Landowner May Sue Gov't in Landmark Fracking Case

[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/11/Ernst ... ng-Update/ ]

Decision 'reaffirms the power of the people,' says plaintiff Jessica Ernst.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, November 11, 2014 TheTyee.ca

A landmark lawsuit that challenges the lax regulation of hydraulic fracturing in Canada has just scored a major victory.

In a lengthy decision, [ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/wp-cont ... awsuit.pdf ] Alberta Chief Justice Neil Wittmann dismissed all key arguments made by the government of Alberta against the lawsuit of Jessica Ernst, including the fear that it may unleash a flood of lawsuits against a government that is heavily dependent on hydrocarbon revenue.

The Alberta government argued that Ernst's $33-million lawsuit had no merit; that the government owed no duty of care to landowners with contaminated water; and that the government had statutory immunity. [ http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/04/18/Anti-Fracking-Suit/ ]

But Wittmann's ruling disagreed on all major counts and ordered the lawsuit against the government to proceed.

"While this is a novel claim, I find there is a reasonable prospect Ernst will succeed in establishing that Alberta owed her a prima facie duty of care," Wittmann wrote.

MORE:

[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/11/Ernst ... ng-Update/ ]


= = = = = =


Court rules that Alberta Environment can be sued for failing to properly investigate and remediate water contamination near Rosebud

[ http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1443435 ... ar-rosebud ]

November 10, 2014 3:31 PM

ROSEBUD, AB, Nov 10, 2014 /CNW/ - The Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta has ruled that Alberta Environment can be sued for failing to properly investigate and remediate water contamination allegedly caused by Encana's hydraulic fracturing activities near Rosebud, Alberta.

The judgment can be found here: [ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/the-lawsuit]

"This is a big victory for water and for all Albertans. The decision means that landowners can stand up and hold governments and regulators to account if they fail in their duty to properly investigate environmental contamination" said Rosebud resident and plaintiff Jessica Ernst.

Alberta Environment argued in court it didn't owe a "private duty of care" to individual landowners when investigating causes of groundwater contamination that left wells so polluted with methane and other contaminants that the water could (and still can) be lit on fire. In other words, the regulator argued that individual landowners couldn't try to hold government legally responsible for negligent investigations of environmental contamination, no matter how faulty. The Court disagreed. Chief Justice Wittmann ruled that "[w]hile this is a novel claim, I find there is a reasonable prospect Ernst will succeed in establishing that Alberta owed her a prima facie duty of care."

In addition to ruling in favour of Ms. Ernst on all key points, Chief Justice Wittmann took the rare step of ordering the government to pay triple Ms. Ernst's legal costs for the improper manner in which her claim was attacked.

"Ernst was wholly successful in responding to this Application. . . . These arguments could have been raised as part of Alberta's first application, but were not. Ernst was put to the time and expense of two applications, not one. . . . As a result of these considerations Ernst shall have her costs against Alberta fixed at triple [the regular rate]"

For French translation and more information, including Encana's Statement of Defence:
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/the-lawsuit ]

SOURCE Klippensteins
For further information: Jessica Ernst: (403) 677-2074, contact@jessicaernst.ca; Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors: Murray Klippenstein, (416) 598-0288 or (416) 937-8634; Cory Wanless, (416) 598-0288 or (647) 886-1914
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT!

Postby Oscar » Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:07 pm

Alberta Landowner Appeals Constitutional Issue in Fracking Case

[ http://thetyee.ca/National/2014/11/15/A ... ign=151114 ]

Jessica Ernst aims to challenge regulator immunity in Canada's highest court.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, November 15, 2014 TheTyee.ca

Can provincial legislation protect the state and "block an individual from seeking a remedy for breach" of her fundamental rights and freedoms under the nation's Charter of Rights?

That's the question that lawyers representing Alberta oil patch consultant Jessica Ernst have now posed to the Supreme Court of Canada in a special legal filing known as application for leave.

Murray Klippenstein and Cory Wanless, Ernst's Toronto-based legal team, are hoping that the court will agree to hear their arguments that the Alberta Court of Appeal erred this year when it ruled against their client. [ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/wp-cont ... s-ERCB.pdf ]

The Court of Appeal found that the province's energy regulator can violate a citizen's fundamental freedoms because a provincial immunity clause protects it from civil actions from citizens.

But Ernst's landmark lawsuit, which challenges the regulation of hydraulic fracturing, is multi-sided.

It alleges that Encana, a pioneer of hydraulic fracturing, drilled and fractured shallow coal bed methane wells directly in the local groundwater supply between 2001 and 2004 near Rosebud, Alberta, polluting Ernst's water well with enough toxic chemicals and methane to make it flammable.

The lawsuit also alleges that two provincial regulators, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and Alberta Environment, failed to act on documented and repeated violations of the law.

The ERCB, now the Alberta Energy Regulator, is the province's powerful energy regulator. It is to Albertans what the Texas Railroad Commission is to Texans: the primary regulator for the oil and gas industry.

In addition, Ernst's lawsuit alleges that the ERCB ceased all communication with the oil patch consultant and falsely accused her of making "criminal threats," thereby violating her fundamental Charter rights to free expression.

This week, Ernst won a legal victory when Chief Justice Neil Wittmann struck down the last of three attempts by the Alberta government to quash the case by ruling that Alberta Environment can be sued when it acts in bad faith.

An editorial in the Edmonton Journal hailed the decision, calling it a ''victory for the little guy.'' [ http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/ ... story.html ]

MORE:

[ http://thetyee.ca/National/2014/11/15/A ... ign=151114 ]

- - - -

Related

Judge Rules Landowner May Sue Gov't in Landmark Fracking Case
[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/11/Ernst ... ng-Update/ ]
Decision 'reaffirms the power of the people,' says plaintiff Jessica Ernst.


Alberta Moves to Strike Down Ernst's Fracking Lawsuit
[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/04/18/Anti-Fracking-Suit/ ]
Landmark case could spark a flood of litigation against the province, lawyer argues.


Tell Us What's Being Done to Our Groundwater, Demand Albertans
[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/10/17/Alberta-Groundwater/ ]
Push for transparency after province closed once-public records on aquifer quality.

Read more: Energy, Environment
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT!

Postby Oscar » Mon Nov 17, 2014 5:24 pm

UPDATE: JESSICA ERNST – THE LAWSUIT

[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/the-lawsuit ]


Alberta Landowner Appeals Constitutional Issue in Fracking Case
[ http://thetyee.ca/National/2014/11/15/A ... king_Case/ ]
Jessica Ernst aims to challenge regulator immunity in Canada's highest court.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, 15 Nov 2014, TheTyee.ca
November 13, 2014

QUOTES: "Secondly, the Court of Appeal of Alberta has now upheld law in the Ernst case that puts the province at odds with laws in Ontario, where constitutional issues come first.

In Ontario, a regulator could not violate the Charter rights of a citizen like Ernst and get away with it, Ernst's lawyers argue. They will ask whether the rights of Ontarians to seek Charter protections should be more robust than those of Albertans."[/
b]

- - - -

[b]An analysis of the most recent legal ruling on the lawsuit by a University of Calgary law professor said that the Ernst case on groundwater contamination is shaping up to be ''the legal saga of the decade.''

[ http://ablawg.ca/2014/11/14/regulatory- ... #more-5078 ]

= = = = = = =

A victory for the little guy

[ http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/ ... story.html ]

Edmonton Journal November 13, 2014

QUOTE: “Ernst next heads to the Supreme Court of Canada to overturn the regulator’s heavy-handed decision to ban her from further communication. We hope she wins that one, too.”

= = = = = = =

READ: Memorandum of Argument filed with the SCC (is an excellent read on tribunal/regulator immunity and our Charter rights.)

[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/wp-cont ... s-ERCB.pdf ]


-= = = = = = =


LISTEN: Ian Jessop interviews Jessica Ernst on her win against the Alberta Government

[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/ian-jes ... government ]

Posted on November 14, 2014 by admin

Ian Jessop interviews Jessica Ernst on her win against the Alberta Government’s Motion to Strike November 14, 2014, CFAX 1070

LISTEN: Interview w CFAX 1070, Victoria BC: – starts at 6 min. spot

[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/ian-jes ... government ]
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT!

Postby Oscar » Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:10 am

Lawyers Accuse Gas Giant of Deficient Records Filing in Fracking Case

[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/04/01/Encan ... ign=010415 ]

Encana disclosure shows 'disdain for an ordinary Albertan,' claims counsel for Jessica Ernst.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, April 1, 2015, TheTyee.ca

Lawyers representing Jessica Ernst in her landmark lawsuit challenging the regulation and practice of hydraulic fracturing in Canada have accused Encana Corporation of failing to meet its legal obligations on full disclosure of documents.

Calgary-based Encana is Canada's largest extractor of natural gas and an early pioneer of the hydraulic fracturing of low-quality rock formations in British Columbia, Wyoming, Texas, Alberta and Colorado.

"Encana's disclosure of records is extraordinarily deficient," reads a letter by lawyer Murray Klippenstein, who is representing oil patch consultant and landowner Ernst.

- - -

In his letter dated March 27, Klippenstein wrote that the company failed to disclose chemicals used in Encana's wells; baseline testing data on water wells; and reports on hydraulic fracturing.

Klippenstein added that documents filed before the court are disorganized, lacking in detail, and improperly titled, with many stripped of important electronic information.

"Perhaps it is simply extremely low work quality standards... or disdain for an ordinary Albertan who dares to challenge the mighty Encana, or the semi-deliberate placement of an impediment to Ms. Ernst's attempt to bring the matter before the court," Klippenstein wrote.

Klippenstein has asked the company to redo its disclosure of records in a manner that complies with Alberta court law and the agreed upon protocol regarding the disclosure of electronic material.

An Encana spokesman offered no comment and referred reporters to a website statement which says: "Ms. Ernst's claims are not supported by the facts and her lawsuit is without merit."

- - - -

One ruling headed to top court

Another aspect of Ernst's case now sits before justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, who will decide whether or not it will be heard.

After Alberta's Court of Appeal ruled that an immunity clause protects the ERCB (now the Alberta Energy Regulator) from civil action or a Charter claim, Ernst's lawyers applied to the nation's highest court to strike that ruling.

The issue at stake could impact millions of Canadians: Can a general "protection from action" clause contained within provincial legislation allow a regulator to trump a citizen's right to seek remedy after his or her rights may have been breached?

According to Ernst's lawsuit, the ERCB falsely branded Ernst as an "ecoterrorist" and banned all communication with the landowner when she criticized the board publicly.

The Supreme Court is expected to make its decision on whether or not to hear the case soon. [Tyee]

- - -

Andrew Nikiforuk is an award-winning journalist who has been writing about the energy industry for two decades and is a contributing editor to The Tyee. His forthcoming book on the Jessica Ernst case, Slick Water, will be published by Greystone Books this fall. Find Andrew's previous stories here: [ http://thetyee.ca/Bios/Andrew_Nikiforuk/ ].
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT!

Postby Oscar » Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:32 am

JESSICA'S FRACKING DIGEST: April 7, 2015 - with Comments

Important Diana Daunheimer hearing April 13 & Nikiforuk: Lawyers Accuse Gas Giant of Deficient Records Filing in Fracking Case

From: Jessica Ernst
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 11:24 PM
Subject: 1. Important Diana Daunheimer hearing April 13 & Nikiforuk: Lawyers Accuse Gas Giant of Deficient Records Filing in Fracking Case


Fracking criticism spreads, even in Alberta and Texas
Canadian, U.S. studies raise concerns that chemicals used in process make people sick
By Michelle Leslie, for CBC News Posted: Apr 07, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Apr 07, 2015 10:02 AM ET
[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/frack ... -1.3002287 ]

we're promised if our drinking water goes bad after fracing, everything is fine because we have access to the courts.

Cartoon above from local Alberta newspaper, Rimbey Review, 1998. Many thanks to the Albertan who sent me this gem! I had never seen it before. now posted to the thank you page.

Includes update on Supreme Court of Canada:

Lawyers Accuse Gas Giant of Deficient Records Filing in Fracking Case
Encana disclosure shows 'disdain for an ordinary Albertan,' claims counsel for Jessica Ernst.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, April 1, 2015, TheTyee.ca
[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/04/01/Encan ... t-Records/ ]
some fascinating, yet creepy and threatening comments from an unnamed Ontario lawyer, and responses by Jo Dion, Diana Daunheimer, and Annie_fiftyseven

Klippenstein's Press Release (as of yet, no mainstream media reported on it):
[ http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1510845 ... ation-case ]
In our legal system, Encana must disclose all important and relevant records, including all chemicals used, even trade secrets. The court ordered deadline for complete disclosure by Encana was Dec 19, 2014.

Summary by Ponoka Alberta landowner/retired rancher:

I have attached a link to a Tyee article written about the Ernst v EnCana legal case. The journalist has succinctly explained what has transpired over the past 10 years. The latest development, a letter written by a high level lawyer about EnCana's cooperation in the case, says a lot about this company's respect for the legal system and the individuals trying to seek justice within it. Please read and then decide is this the great community donator and supporter that you would want to deal with. Not I, we also experienced their kind of abuse first hand! It's time they were put into the same category as everyone else who has to abide by this country's rules, court and otherwise.

Ronalie

[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/04/01/Encan ... t-Records/ ]

- - - - -GRAPHIC- - - - -

image above from [ http://bowdoinorient.com/article/10119 ]

a few posts of interest, lots more on website:

Daunheimer MONDAY April 13, 2015 Hearing in Calgary Details. Frac it All. Frack Club Exposed: Banks Bail on Shale. What about those millions or billions in damages? Who pays for them?
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/frac-it ... l-on-shale ]
click on link, scroll to bottom for details on the Daunheimer hearing on monday in Calgary Court of Queen's Bench

- - - - -

OOOPS! Fracking Study on Water Contamination Under Ethics Review, Chesapeake Energy paid undisclosed fees to lead author, study based on questionably collected samples (ensure no methane?) provided by Chesapeake
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/ooops-f ... rovided-by ]

- - - - - -

MUST WATCH VIDEO: Another frac mess! 200 Evacuated, Nearly 70 homes damaged in Marinza, Albania; Canadian firm Bankers Petroleum Ltd (has steam injection pilot project there), was at 500 metres depth when “volcanos” of gas, mud (chemicals?) and water erupted
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/200-eva ... cals-water ]

- - - - -

Jack Shawn Eyles, 28, from Kelowna, dies fracking in NE BC for Calfrac (Nitrogen Pumping Division) on Progress Energy Canada Ltd. Site: “Not an explosion as we we usually think, but an explosive or sudden release of extremely high pressure”
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/jack-sh ... osive-or-s ]

- - - - -

Maryland Senate Passes Bill, 93-45, To Declare Fracking An “ultrahazardous and abnormally dangerous activity”
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/marylan ... s-activity ]

- - - - -

EPA Frac Investigation: Most Drillers Keep Chemicals Secret in Fracfocus; “One or more ingredients were claimed confidential in more than 70% of disclosures”
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/most-dr ... isclosures ]

- - - - - -

Did Harper and the oil and gas industry order RCMP/CSIS/Snipers to attack innocent mothers and grandmothers, and set aflame stripped police cars in New Brunswick to discredit all Canadians concerned about frac harms and lay a red carpet for Harper’s Bill C-51?
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/did-har ... oncerned-a ]

- - - - -

British Medical Journal publishes letter by 20 high profile medical and public health experts calling for ban of “inherently risky” frac industry; Medact’s new report concludes: fracking “poses significant risks to public health”
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/british ... g-poses-si ]

- - - - -

MUST (LONG) READ! Special Issue of Journal Environmental Science and Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering: Facing the Challenges – Research on Shale Gas Extraction
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/special ... extraction ]

- - - - -

Another Frac Panel? When will the many peer-reviewed studies and reports showing frac harm, bad economics and deadly jobs be enough? Former Chief Justice of Court of Queen’s Bench NB, Professor Engineering & President Emeritus University NB, former board chair of NB Community College appointed to study fracing
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/another ... ir-communi ]

- - - - -

After how many secret industry/government edits? BC Health Finally Releases Intrinsik’s August 2014 Frac Health Impact Report
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/after-h ... act-report ]

- - - - - -


HOW THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY'S BEST IN THE WORLD 'ALBERTA MODEL' PROTECTS THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY:
Subject: Alberta Surface Rights Board - Failure to Landowners
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:32:07 -0600

The Special Meeting in Trochu on April 9th, 2015. A quick explanation on why this meeting truly is "special"! Lemke vs Petroglobe. The Lemke's took their case of non payment of annual surface lease rent to the Surface Rights Board. The board changed a long standing practice of granting annual payment by the government when an oil company goes bankrupt, as is required under section 36 of the Surface Rights Act. The Board claimed the federal bankruptcy act superceded the Alberta Surface Rights Act, although it is very clear that this is not the case. Since that decision the Surface Rights Board has been declining to hear any cases relating to section 36 and insolvent companies!

So here's the problem: We all know the oil and gas situation in these times of low prices. Many of these companies are on very shaky ground and many of them might not survive. We also know the Alberta government is having an extremely difficult time balancing their budget and that is probably going to get tougher as companies shut down and workers are laid off. The fact is the Alberta government is quite eager to walk away from their obligations to landowners under the Surface Rights Act. While some companies truly are in distress and bankruptcy is their only option, others will view this situation as a means of cutting their costs! They simply will sell off unprofitable assets to a "breakout company", designed to go bankrupt and down load the expenses onto the government! The government has, in turn, decided to download that expense to the individual landowner! [THE TRICKLE DOWN TORY WAY!] We can expect to see this scheme expand! ALL Alberta landowners, with surface leases, could feel the pain! Today your surface lease might be owned by a major company and you are pretty sure they will remain solvent......and without a doubt the big boys can weather this storm.........but that is not to say that they won't sell your lease to a "break out company" if they see it as a profitable solution to cut costs! We all need to understand this. Better to inform yourself today, rather than wait until the checks stop coming.......because by then it will be too late!

Alberta Surface Rights Board-Failing to Protect Alberta Landowners
Landowners: Are you prepared to lose your annual surface lease payments? These payments will be in jeopardy if these recent Surface Rights Board ‘s decisions are allowed to stand unchallenged. The Alberta Surface Rights Act is legislation that was designed to protect the property rights of Alberta landowners and promote harmony between energy companies and landowners. Recent decisions by the Alberta Surface Rights Board (Board) has completely changed a long standing practice of guaranteeing annual surface lease payments, by the Alberta government, as legislated under section 36 of the Surface Rights Act.

The Alberta Surface Rights Group (ASRG) is challenging the board decision to refuse to compensate landowners, in the event a company becomes insolvent. ASRG submits that the Alberta Surface Rights Board erred in an interpretation of law, under the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Surface Rights Board claimed the Bank and Insolvency Act superseded the Alberta Surface Rights Act, although it is very clear that this is not the case. Since that Surface Right Board decision, the board has been declining to hear any landowner cases relating to section 36 of the Surface Rights Act, involving insolvent companies. Due to the current low oil and gas prices, many companies are facing financial difficulties.

ASRG has compiled a substantial list, of mostly junior O&G companies that have filed for bankruptcy protection, and others that are at high risk of defaulting. We also see the potential for profitable companies to spin off low producing marginal properties to high risk juniors, in an effort to reduce costs. You might be very confident in your current operators’ ability to remain solvent, but that does not mean the company won't sell the property, if it affects their bottom line. We are also concerned that Alberta landowners and taxpayers could be saddled with reclamation liabilities, if this practice is allowed to proliferate.

The Alberta Surface Rights Group Society will be holding a special public information meeting on April 9, 2015, at 7PM at the Trochu Community Hall.

There will be two prominent Alberta property rights lawyers, Keith Wilson and Shaun Fluker, will be there to explain the implications of these Surface Rights Board decisions to landowners, and to discuss a potential court challenge. All landowners with surface lease agreements on their land should plan on attending this Special Meeting.

- - - - -

Art Berman: Shale Plays Have Years, Not Decades & The way of greed: Oil and gas companies face their creditors as Fracking Bubble Bursts

[scroll down to embed of the presentation]
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/art-ber ... rsts-funny ]

- - - - -

Did Alberta Just Break a Fracking Earthquake World Record with 4.4 Temblor at Fox Creek? Sounds of Silence: The Crooked Lake Earthquakes
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/did-alb ... arthquakes ]

- - - - -

California now says 2,500 wells dumping frac waste into protected aquifers, up from 532 in February. Regulators order oil drillers including Chevron Corp. and Linn Energy LLC to halt operations at 12 injection wells (two were issued cease and desist orders) because they may taint groundwater suitable for drinking and irrigation
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/califor ... nt-groundw ]

- - - - - -

2015 03 20 Andrew Nikiforuk on water
[ http://lesamisdurichelieu.blogspot.ca/2 ... mment-form ]


ANDREW NIKIFORUK TALK: Politics of Fracking and the Reality of Leaky Wells?
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/are-com ... in-alberta ]

- - - - - -

Pennsylvania, Finleyville: Joyce and Hillary Hill forced out of their home of 38 years; Migrating gas into their water cistern exploded, threatens explosion of their home too
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/pennsyl ... r-home-too ]

- - - - -

Constitutional challenge filed with Supreme Court of Canada: Federal energy regulator (chaired by Alberta’s Peter Watson) violates Charter, court case alleges; “The NEB (National Energy Board) has lost its way,” said lawyer David Martin
[ http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/federal ... vid-martin ]

- - - - -

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: We are live....please spread the word far and wide!

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:20:57 -0700
From: Roxanne Walsh mailto:the_nature_advocate@live.com
To: Roxanne Walsh mailto:the_nature_advocate@live.com

We are raising money to pay for an expert in our water appeals, two experts if we can raise more.
Please consider donating and forwarding.

The Hearing of our appeals before the Alberta Environmental Appeals Board, is in Turner Valley April 28-May 1, 2015

Thank you. :)

[ https://justicefundr.ca/?p=1735 ]


-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Our Polluted Water
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:27:07 -0600
From: Ellen Alston mailto:elalston@telus.net
To: Ellen Alston mailto:elalston@telus.net
CC: premier@gov.ab.ca

Jessica:

I am writing to ask that you take a moment to review the following; Les and I have lost our health, home and livelihood due to pollution on our property. It is 9 years since we first asked government authorities for assistance. The M.D. of Foothills 31 illegally developed land on a watercourse immediately across from our property. The watercourse is polluted with horse manure and urine from property owned by the M.D. All requests for assistance and action from Alberta Health and Environment have been denied. There are 25 other families plus their children on this polluted watershed. Please pass this email onto as many of your friends as possible.

Connect with me at [ http://www.facebook.com/alstonvsmdfoothills31 ]

and/or assist by

Pressing: “Reply All” will send a copy of this e-mail to Jim Prentice and Myself asking for him to Enforce Our Environmental Laws.

With thanks,

Ellen L. Alston
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT!

Postby Oscar » Sun May 03, 2015 9:19 am

Landmark Fracking Case Gets a Supreme Court Hearing

[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/04/30/Ernst ... ign=010515 ]

Oil patch consultant Jessica Ernst alleges Alberta has intimidated landowners.

By Andrew Nikiforuk, 30 Apr 2015, TheTyee.ca

The Supreme Court of Canada said today that it will hear the landmark case of Jessica Ernst, which squarely challenges how the Alberta government has treated landowners and regulated hydraulic fracturing. [ http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/news/e ... 9/index.do ]

The decision both stunned and exhilarated the 57-year-old Ernst.

"I've always known my case was important for water and all Canadians, that's why I am taking this legal stand," said Ernst who lives in Rosebud, Alberta.

"The court will now hear my appeal that provincial energy regulators not be legally immune from violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when trying to intimidate citizens harmed by fracking," added Ernst. Her stand against the industry and the Alberta government has made her a folk hero throughout North America and parts of Europe.

However, a win at the Supreme Court does not mean that she will win her lawsuit, explained Ernst to the Tyee. "It means I would be sent back to the lower court in Alberta to begin my lawsuit against the Alberta Energy Regulator. It means still a very long, hard, expensive journey."

The Supreme Court only hears about four per cent of all civil Charter claims brought to its doorstep.

Eight years ago, oil patch consultant Ernst sued Alberta Environment, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) and Encana, one of Canada's largest unconventional gas drillers, over the contamination of her well water with hydrocarbons and the failure of government authorities to properly investigate the fouling of groundwater.

The $33-million lawsuit alleges that Encana negligently fractured into fresh water zones more than a decade ago; that the ERCB breached Ernst's freedoms under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and that Alberta Environment performed a problem-plagued investigation in bad faith.

After the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled last year that Ernst could not sue the province's energy regulator (the lawsuit against Encana and Alberta Environment is slowly proceeding) because of a protective immunity clause, her lawyers asked the Supreme Court to consider reviewing the matter on constitutional grounds.

Ernst's case raises a number of critical national issues that involve the Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The basic question the Supreme Court must now consider boils down to this: Can a provincial law allow a powerful energy regulator to violate the nation's Charter of Rights and Freedoms by banishing citizens and falsely branding them as a security threats?

MORE:

[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/04/30/Ernst ... ign=010515 ]
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT, again . . .

Postby Oscar » Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:28 pm

LISTEN: Fracking Lawsuit (28 min.)

[ http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayeditio ... -1.3169523 ]

The Sunday Edition August 2, 2015

After three decades as a consultant to the oil industry, Jessica Ernst decided to sue her biggest client, Encana, which is also Canada's largest producer of natural gas. She is also suing the Alberta Energy Regulator and the Alberta government.

It concerns fracking - or hydraulic fracturing - where large volumes of water, sand and chemicals are used to blast open the earth and extract resources…in this case, natural gas. Ms. Ernst alleges fracking has contaminated the aquifer that supplies water to her community and home in Rosebud, about a hundred kilometres east of Calgary. Encana denies her allegation.

The anti-fracking movement has been growing over the years, due to concerns about its environmental impact. Industry officials have countered with ad campaigns and assurances that fracking is safe. At the same time, they have quietly reached out-of- court settlements with citizens who have sued.

Jessica Ernst won't settle. She says she's in it for the long haul, until a judge renders a final decision. It's been eight years so far and the next stop is the Supreme Court of Canada, in January.

Guest host Francine Pelletier spoke with Ms. Ernst in our Calgary studio, and with her lawyer, Murray Klippenstein, in Toronto.
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT, again . . .

Postby Oscar » Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:00 am

Justice Delayed? Ernst Fracking Case Still Awaits Supreme Court Ruling

[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/10/25/Ernst ... ign=251016 ]

Alberta landowner’s complex lawsuit has now lasted nine years in total.

By Andrew Nikiforuk , TheTyee.ca October 24, 2016

Andrew Nikiforuk’s book, Slick Water, documents the Ernst case as well as the history of fracking. It recently won the Science in Society Book Award from the U.S. National Association of Science Writers.

Everyone from William Gladstone to Martin Luther King Jr. has recognized that justice delayed is just another form of justice denied in a democracy.

Jessica Ernst is now feeling that sentiment, and for good reason.

MORE:

[ http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/10/25/Ernst ... ign=251016 ]
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT, again . . .

Postby Oscar » Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:09 am

Supreme Court rules fracking critic doesn't have charter right to sue

[ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme ... -1.3934002 ]

Alberta woman challenged provision that grants energy regulator immunity from lawsuits

By Kathleen Harris, CBC News Posted: Jan 13, 2017 9:59 AM ET| Last Updated: Jan 13, 2017 10:35 AM ET

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday against Alberta resident Jessica Ernst, who has been challenging a law that prevents her from suing the province's energy regulator.

Canada's top court has ruled that an Alberta landowner does not have the right to sue the province's energy regulator for infringing her constitutional rights.

In a 5-4 split decision, Supreme Court of Canada justices rejected Jessica Ernst's challenge to sue the Alberta Energy Regulator for denying her right to freedom of expression.

The court said Ernst should have pursued a judicial review of how the regulator handled her complaints about fracking.

The ruling also defended the immunity clauses that protect many government bodies from lawsuits.

"When the board made the decision to stop communicating with Ernst, in essence finding her to be a vexatious litigant, it was exercising its discretionary authority under its enabling legislation," it reads. "Issues about the legality, reasonableness, or fairness of this discretionary decision are issues for judicial review. Ernst had the opportunity to seek timely judicial review of the board's decision. She chose not to. Instead, she attempted to frame her grievance as a claim for charter damages."

Provisions are in place to prevent an "end run" by litigants around the required process that can result in undue expense and delay for the regulator and the public, the decision says.

Ernst has claimed hydraulic fracking so severely contaminated her well and water supply with toxic chemicals that she could set it on fire. She has argued that the Alberta Energy Regulator violated her charter right to freedom of expression by refusing to accept her complaints and pressuring her to stop making criticisms publicly and through the media.

Ernst said efforts to engage with the regulator were ignored and her letters were returned unopened.

- - -SNIP - - -

Ernst's legal battle doesn't end today. She will continue to pursue the lawsuit, a fight she expects will be "most unpleasant and stressful."

Cassie Naas, spokeswoman for the Alberta Energy Regulator, said it would take time to carry out a "thorough review" of the decision before making a public statement.

- - -

Related Stories (LINKS are here: [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme ... -1.3934002 ])

■ 'I think they were trying to scare me into silence': Top court to rule whether woman can sue energy regulator
■ Fracking criticism spreads, even in Alberta and Texas
■ Fracking and earthquakes: Is there a connection?
■ Supreme Court of Canada to hear case over Alberta well said to be contaminated by fracking
■ Fracking Lawsuit
■ Alberta woman's right to sue over fracking tested at Supreme Court
■ Supreme Court to rule on energy regulator case
■ Fracking case at top court
■ Does fracking cause earthquakes?
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT, again . . .

Postby Oscar » Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:29 pm

Council of Canadians deeply disappointed in Ernst fracking case ruling

[ http://canadians.org/blog/council-canad ... ase-ruling ]

January 13, 2017 - 10:04 pm (Photo of Jessica Ernst by Colin Smith)

Today the Supreme Court of Canada rejected Alberta landowner Jessica Ernst's legal challenge to sue the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for denying her right to freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court said that Ernst should have launched a judicial review of how the AER handled and defended the immunity clauses that shield government bodies from lawsuits.

In 2007, Ernst launched a multimillion-dollar suit against the regulator, Alberta Environment and Calgary-based energy company Encana for negligence that contaminated her well water. Similar to cases in Josh Fox's documentary Gasland, her well is so contaminated with methane that she can light the water on fire.

Lawyer Laura Track told CBC News, "The charter guarantees everyone the right to an appropriate and just remedy if their constitutional rights are violated, but a majority of the court has now said that in some circumstances, government actors may be immune from charter scrutiny...This decision has extremely concerning implications for people across the country seeking to hold governments accountable for potentially unconstitutional action." [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme ... -1.3934002 ]

The Tyee reports, "The split ruling Friday — five justices rejected her claim, with four supporting it — is a setback for the protection of groundwater and the rights of landowners dealing with provincial energy regulators, often funded or captured by industry interests, say many critics and lawyers...The five justices in the Supreme Court majority concluded that immunity clauses are in the interests of 'good governance.'" [ https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/01/13/Land ... king-Case/ ]

Ernst told the Tyee, "“All Canadians have lost in this decision...Whenever any Canadian is harmed by pipelines or fracking and they present evidence of harm to a regulator and then that regulator ignores or denies that evidence, citizens can no longer sue for justice.”

But Ernst is determined to continue to seek justice and says she will continue the battle.

In Alberta, farmers and landowners are up in arms over the impact fracking is having on their drinking water, health, crops and farms. There are growing concerns of public safety with the fracking-induced earthquakes experienced in Fox Creek one year ago. A Western University expert has warned that earthquakes will become "more frequent and stronger." [ https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/01/13/Land ... king-Case/ ]

In 2014, the Liberal Party of Canada (NWT) passed a resolution proposing a National Environmental Assessment of Fracking but no mention has been made by the Trudeau government since it came into power in 2015. [ https://www.liberal.ca/policy-resolutio ... -fracking/ ]

While a National Environmental Assessment of Fracking is critical to water protection, climate stability and public health, the Council of Canadians urges the Trudeau government to support communities’ demands for a stop to fracking. The Council of Canadians calls for a ban on fracking to protect drinking water, people's health and public safety and to curb climate change.

Tags: fracking
[ http://canadians.org/tags/fracking ]

Emma Lui's blog
Water Campaigner for the council of Canadians
[ http://canadians.org/blogs/emma-lui ]
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Re: THE LAWSUIT: ENCANA GOES TO COURT, again . . .

Postby Oscar » Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:18 am

Alberta Energy Regulator’s Response to Ernst Case ‘Inaccurate and Misleading’, Say Professors

[ https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/01/19/Albe ... ign=190117 ]

Agency misrepresents Supreme Court ruling on right to sue over alleged Charter violations, they say.

By Andrew Nikiforuk , 19 Jan 2017 | TheTyee.ca

Andrew Nikiforuk is an award-winning journalist who has been writing about the energy industry for two decades and is a contributing editor to The Tyee. His award-winning book Slick Water, documents the Ernst case and the history of fracking. Find his previous stories here.

Two University of Calgary law professors have demanded Alberta’s energy regulator withdraw its “inaccurate and misleading” statement on a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that a landowner couldn’t sue it for alleged rights violations.

The court ruled Friday, in a split decision, that Jessica Ernst couldn’t sue the oil and gas regulator for allegedly violating her Charter rights.

The Alberta Energy Regulator posted a statement on its website in response to the highly technical ruling.

“The Court did not find there was a breach of Ms. Ernst’s Charter rights, and made no findings of negligence on the part of the AER or its predecessor the ERCB,” declared the statement.

But law professors Shaun Fluker and Sharon Mascher have written in a popular legal blog that the regulator’s claim isn’t true.
[ http://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/201 ... tement.pdf ]

“The AER Public Statement is inaccurate and misleading, and is not the sort of action we would expect a quasi-judicial tribunal to consider appropriate,” they write. “The Supreme Court made no finding at all on a breach of the Charter in the Ernst decision.”

MORE:

[ https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/01/19/Albe ... ign=190117 ]
Oscar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7658
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm


Return to FRACKING

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron