A recent decision from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
raises the issue of whether similar fact evidence may be useful in
a limitations defence.
In Capital Power PPA Management Inc. v. TransAlta
Corporation, 2018 ABQB 1036, Justice Rooke summarily
dismissed Capital Power's action on limitation grounds.
Capital Power and TransAlta were parties to the (now terminated)
Sundance C Power Purchase Arrangement, a regulation under which
TransAlta, the Owner, sells electricity that it generated from two
generation units at the Sundance power plant to Capital Power, the
Buyer.
Capital Power's claim arose from an allegation that
TransAlta decided in 2010 and 2011 to take into account its overall
portfolio position (as opposed to stand-alone single unit
economics) when taking six forced plant outages. These plant
outages were the subject of a two week hearing before the Alberta
Utilities Commission (AUC) in December 2014. The AUC rendered its
decision on July 27, 2015.
