WWW.LEXPERT.CA
|
2017
|
LEXPERT 39
Wilcox, Peter R. Belmore Neidrauer LLP
(416) 863-3363 peter.wilcox@belmorelaw.com
Mr. Wilcox has over 20 years of experience litigating complex intellectual
property cases. He has particular expertise representing pharmaceutical
and biotechnology companies in patent disputes. He also has experience
litigating medical device and oil and gas technology patents,
as well as trademark, copyright and trade secret disputes.
White, J. Bradley Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
(613) 787-1101 bwhite@osler.com
Mr. White, partner and chair of the National Intellectual Property
Department, practises IP law with a focus on complex patent litigation
and prosecution. He advises clients on strategic management of their patent
portfolios and enforcement, including the coordination and management
of multi-jurisdictional litigation, and is registered as a patent agent including
to practise before the USPTO.
Watson, Michael S.F. Gowling WLG
(416) 369-7245 michael.watson@gowlingwlg.com
Mr. Watson is Adjunct Professor of Law at Toronto's Osgoode Hall Law
School, and also teaches at the University of Notre Dame and l'Université
de Moncton. He is a partner in the Toronto office of Gowling WLG, practising
in the area of corporate and commercial litigation, administrative law,
and employment and labour relations.
Waddell, Margaret L. Waddell Phillips
Professional Corporation (416) 477-6979
marg@waddellphillips.ca
Ms. Waddell is a founding partner of Waddell Phillips Professional
Corporation and leads the Class Action practice group. She is a recognized
leader with particular experience and expertise in class actions, acting
on cases involving consumer protection, securities fraud, product liability
and institutional abuse. Ms. Waddell represents plaintiffs and defendants.
Veneziano, Mark Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP
(416) 865-3051 mveneziano@litigate.com
Mr. Veneziano is an expert trial lawyer having conducted dozens of trials
and arbitrations as lead counsel. His practice has a particular emphasis on
commercial and civil litigation, professional liability, shareholder disputes,
insurance coverage, securities, construction and real estate law. His clients
range from corporations and physicians to stockbrokers and banks.
Van Barr, Christopher C. Gowling WLG
(613) 786-8675 christopher.vanbarr@gowlingwlg.com
Mr. Van Barr is a lead IP trial counsel and appeal counsel, appearing in
courts across Canada. He practises exclusively in IP Litigation with emphasis
on complex patent litigation. He has expertise also in trademark, copyright
and trade secret litigation.
LEXPERT-RANKED LAWYERS
Schutz) held that:
By attempting to extract security deposits or
the performance of abandonment obligations on
a transfer of AER licenses, the AER was in effect
transferring the proprietary value in the bankrupt
estate from the underlying real property assets of
Redwater (which were interests in its oil and gas
properties) to the AER licences, contrary to the
scheme of distribution contemplated under the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).
A trustee and receiver is entitled to abandon
or renounce oil and gas assets encumbered with
environmental obligations, the court found.
"It is commonplace for trustees and receivers
to disclaim or 'abandon' assets," Justice Slatter
wrote in the majority decision. "Whether they
formally abandon the assets, or merely leave them
unrealized at the end of the bankruptcy process
makes little difference. A trustee must transfer
unrealized assets to the bankrupt at the end of
the process. ... If a trustee decides that an oil and
gas well has no net realizable value, ... the trustee
can effectively ignore the asset. ...
"[T]he BIA recognizes the ability of a trustee
to abandon assets that are subject to environ-
mental obligations."
e AER's requirement that security be posted
for abandonment obligations, or diverting value
from the bankrupt estate to ensure that remedi-
ation is performed, is sufficient to classify the
claims of the AER as financial in nature, making
them a creditor whose claims are subject to the
priorities prescribed by the BIA. e AER can-
not indirectly interfere with the value of assets in
a bankruptcy by placing financial preconditions
on the transfer of AER licences.
Based on the doctrine of federal paramountcy,
the obligations of trustees and receivers under
both the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA)
and the Pipeline Act (PA) to abandon oil wells
and pipelines; pay the costs of remediation per-
formed by other persons; and to obey any order
of the AER is in operational conflict with section
14.06 of the BIA. Section 14.06 of the BIA ex-
empts a receiver or a trustee from personal liabil-
ity, allows a trustee and receiver to disclaim assets,
and prescribes the priority of environmental re-
mediation costs.
e majority of the Alberta Court of Ap-
peal also held that the applicable sections of the
OGCA and PA frustrate the federal purpose of
the BIA of managing the winding up of insolvent
corporations and settling the priority of claims
against them. e majority therefore confirmed
that such obligations of the AER are unenforce-
able as against the Receiver and Trustee.
Arguing the applications on behalf of Grant
ornton were Jeffrey Oliver, with Danielle
Maréchal of Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP and
