Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 DECEMBER 2014

Court Considers Unreasonably Withholding Consent Under CAPL Operating Procedure In Precedent-Setting Decision

Bennett Jones LLP
Bennett Jones LLP
Contributor
Bennett Jones LLP

Bennett Jones LLP

Bennett Jones is one of Canada’s premier business law firms. With deep experience in complex...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bennett Jones LLP

In IFP Technologies (Canada) v Encana Midstream and Marketing, 2014 ABQB 470, the Court clarified for the first time the circumstances in which a party that waives its right of first refusal under Article 24 of the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure may withhold its consent to a disposition of the operator’s interest.

CanadaEnergy and Natural Resources

In IFP Technologies (Canada) v Encana Midstream and Marketing, 2014 ABQB 470, the Court clarified for the first time the circumstances in which a party that waives its right of first refusal under Article 24 of the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure may withhold its consent to a disposition of the operator's interest.

The background facts leading to the case were that IFP purchased an unusual working interest in a heavy-oil field from Encana's corporate predecessor. The field was being developed with conventional production, but may have been a candidate for enhanced production by Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) or other enhanced recovery methods. The agreements between the parties limited IFP's working interest to thermal and enhanced production, with no benefit accruing to IFP for primary production. The agreements did not require Encana to undertake enhanced recovery operations.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from