| Case name: |
Talisman Energy Inc. v. Fay |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - British Columbia |
|
| Court: |
Expropriation Compensation Board |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
Fay, Diane |
|
Claimant |
| |
Fay, Larry |
|
Claimant |
| |
Talisman Energy Inc. |
|
Authority |
|
| Before: |
Decision maker |
Designation |
|
Shorthouse, Robert W.C. |
Chair |
|
| Lawyers: |
Name |
|
Appearing for |
| |
Carter, J. Darryl |
|
Claimant |
| |
Cosburn, Robert S. |
|
Authority |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision: |
Application by the Authority to the British Columbia Expropriation Compensation Board ("ECB") for an order determining the amount of compensation payable to the Claimants pursuant to the Pipeline Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 364 and the Railway Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 395. Application by the Claimants for an order dismissing the Authority's application. A natural gas pipeline had been constructed through the Claimants' land in 1974 by the Authority's predecessor pursuant to a right of entry order granted by the Mediation and Arbitration Board ("MAB") pursuant to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, S.B.C. 1965. After purchasing the property in 2000, the Claimants gave notice to the Authority pursuant to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act to require renegotiation of rental provisions ordered by the MAB. The Authority responded by commencing expropriation proceedings pursuant to the Pipeline Act. The primary issue considered by the ECB was which tribunal had jurisdiction with respect to the pipeline. The ECB concluded that the Pipeline Act applied and that the ECB had jurisdiction. The Claimants' application was dismissed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[2004] EXLAW 308 |
|
| Parallel citations: |
(2004) 84 L.C.R. 3 |
|
|
|
