Director, Public Lands Disposition Management Section, Land Policy v. Programs Branch, Lands Division, Alberta, 2023 ABKB 447

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Alberta (Director of Public Lands Disposition Management Section, Land Policy and Programs Branch, Lands Division, Alberta Environment and Parks) v Syncrude Canada Ltd, 2023 ABKB 447 Date: 20230727 Docket: 2203 15598 Registry: Edmonton Between: Director, Public Lands Disposition Management Section, Land Policy and Programs Branch, Lands Division, Alberta Environment and Parks Applicant - and - Syncrude Canada Ltd. and Alberta Public Lands Appeal Board Respondents _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice Kevin Feth _______________________________________________________ Overview [ 1 ] The Director, Public Lands Disposition Management Section, Land Policy and Programs Branch, Lands Division, Alberta Environment and Parks (the “Director”) and Syncrude Canada Ltd. are parties to a statutory appeal before the Alberta Public Lands Appeal Board (the “Board”).

The Director applies for a stay of the Board’s decision on a preliminary matter in the appeal, pending the determination of the Director’s application for judicial review of that decision. [ 2 ] The stay would suspend the balance of the appeal until the judicial review is concluded. Syncrude opposes the stay. [ 3 ] For the reasons to follow, I conclude that a stay is not just and equitable in all the circumstances. The application is

dismissed. Background [ 4 ] Syncrude operates two oil sands mines and an upgrader located on public lands in northern Alberta. Two Mineral Leases permit Syncrude to access the public lands for oil sands mining and exempt Syncrude from paying royalties for sand and gravel aggregate accumulated from the mining activity. [ 5 ] The exemptions were granted by letters issued in 1979 and 2000. However, Alberta Environment and Parks, now Alberta Forestry, Parks, and Tourism (the “Department”), also required Syncrude to obtain Surface Material Leases for the public lands.

These leases include a requirement that Syncrude pay royalties, as specified by regulation, for the surface materials removed. The leases do not expressly mention the 1979 and 2000 exemptions. [ 6 ] The Surface Material Leases are governed by the Public Lands Act , RSA 2000, s P-40. [ 7 ] In 2019, the Auditor General of Alberta released a report concluding that royalty exemptions were improperly granted to certain energy companies for surface materials extracted from oil sands mine sites. In response, the Department informed Syncrude that royalties would be charged for the sand and gravel starting in 2019.

Syncrude disagreed with that decision. [ 8 ] On May 26, 2021, the Director confirmed that Syncrude could no longer rely on the exemptions and must pay the royalties (the “Exemption Decision”). [ 9 ] Syncrude appealed the Exemption Decision to the Board on the ground that the Exemption Decision varied or amended the Mineral Leases.

The Board’s function is to hear the appeal and provide a report and recommendation to the Minister of the Department, who makes the final decision about the appeal. [ 10 ] The Director applied to the Board to dismiss the appeal because the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear matters involving royalty payments. [ 11 ] On January 14, 2022, the Board held that it has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal about royalty payments. However, the Board concluded that the Exemption Decision varied the Surface Material Leases and is therefore an appealable matter under s 211(

d) of the Public Lands Administration Regulation , Alta Reg 187/2011 : Syncrude v Director, Public Lands Disposition Management Section, Land Policy and Programs Branch, Lands Division, Alberta Environment and Parks , 2022 ABPLAB 1 (the “Jurisdiction Decision”). [ 12 ] Following the Jurisdiction Decision, the Board defined the issues to be determined at the hearing of the appeal, as directed by s 123(2) of the Public Lands Act .

The Board did not include as an issue whether the Surface Material Leases had been varied or amended by the Exemption Decision (the “Variation Issue”). [ 13 ] The Director applied to the Board to expand the issues for the appeal to include the Variation Issue. [ 14 ] On July 27, 2022, the Board concluded that the Variation Issue had been determined as a preliminary matter in the Jurisdiction Decision and, further, that there was no error in that decision.

The Board declined to add the Variation Issue and confirmed the issues that had originally been set for the hearing of the appeal: Syncrude v Director, Public Lands Disposition Management Section, Land Policy and Programs Branch, Lands Division, Alberta Environment and Parks, 2022 ABPLAB 6 (the “Issues Decision”). [ 15 ] On October 5, 2022, the Director commenced this judicial review proceeding seeking to set aside the Issues Decision. The Director contends that the Issues Decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair for several reasons including:

a) The Board improperly determined the merits of the Variation Issue;

b) The Board failed to provide adequate reasons in deciding the Variation Issue;

c) The Board failed to provide the Director with an adequate opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions about the Variation Issue;

d) The Board made a decision about the merits of the appeal without reviewing the complete record of the decision-maker, contrary to s 120 of the Public Lands Act , which contemplates that an appeal is based on the “record of the decision-maker”;

e) The Board improperly decided a substantive issue in advance of the balance of the merits of the appeal;

f) The Board improperly usurped the function of the Minister to make the ultimate decision by removing a relevant issue from the scope of the appeal and the recommendations of the Board. [ 16 ] The Director contends that the Board’s conclusion about the Exemption Decision amending the Surface Material Leases is determinative of the appeal in favour of Syncrude. The Director acknowledges having only limited authority to amend the Surface Material Leases, as specified in the Public Lands Act .

He concedes that none of the statutory grounds were applicable here. [ 17 ] After filing the application for judicial review, the Director asked the Board to postpone the hearing of the appeal until the judicial review is completed. On April 20, 2023, the Board denied the Director’s request: Syncrude v Director, Public Lands Disposition Management Section, Land Policy and Programs Branch, Lands Division, Alberta Forestry, Parks and Tourism , 2023 ABPLAB 6 (the “Postponement Decision”).

[18] The merits of the appeal will be heard over the next few months, relying on written submissions alone. The final writtensubmissions are due by September 25, 2023. However, after receiving the submissions, the Board may direct questions to the parties.After receiving answers to the questions (if any), the hearing will be concluded. [19] The judicial review application is scheduled to be heard on February 29, 2024. The parties acknowledge that a decision mightnot issue until months later.

Legal principles [20] The Court may stay the operation of an administrative decision that a party seeks to set aside through judicial review pendingthe determination of the application. However, a stay should not be ordered if detrimental to the public interest: Rule 3.23 of the AlbertaRules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010. [21] The stay application is analysed through the tripartite test described in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (AG), (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311 at 334, 347-349 [RJR-MacDonald]:

a) Is there a serious question to be heard on the merits, meaning not frivolous or vexatious?

b) Will the applicant suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted?

c) Does the balance of convenience between the parties favour granting the stay? [22] The burden rests with the applicant to demonstrate that the test is satisfied on a balance of probabilities. [23] Where the exercise of government authority is involved, the public interest is a special factor considered at the second andthird stages of the analysis: RJR-MacDonald at 349; Trca v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2022 ABQB 85 at para 9; Cleanit GreenitComposting System Inc v Alberta (Director, Environment and Parks), 2022 ABQB 582 at para 31 [Cleanit Greenit]. [24] The three stages are not watertight compartments.

To some degree, strength at one stage can compensate for weakness inanother, especially the second and third stages which are “inexorably linked and should be considered together”: Irwin v AlbertaVeterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 176 at para 21; Cleanit Greenit at para 32. [25] These factors guide the Court’s exercise of discretion, but the fundamental question remains whether granting a stay is justand equitable in all the circumstances: AB v College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, 2021 ABCA 320 at para 42 and footnote66; Cleanit Greenit at para 33. [26] Syncrude submits that an administrative process, such as a statutory appeal, must runs its course before the superior courtswill intervene, absent exceptional circumstances.

Syncrude therefore argues that the stay application may be dismissed on the thresholdquestion of prematurity without engaging the tripartite test. Alternatively, prematurity is a relevant consideration at one or more of thethree stages in the test.

Syncrude references authorities in which differing approaches have been utilized: Okojie v Canada (Citizenshipand Immigration), 2019 FC 880 at para 45 [Okojie] (threshold inquiry); Abdi v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),2018 FC 202 at para 22 (a factor in assessing serious issue to be heard); James v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),15 Imm LR (2d) 184, 1991 CarswellNat 95 (FC) at para 14 [James] (a factor in assessing irreparable harm and balance of convenience). [27] The Director does not concede that prematurity invites a threshold inquiry, although it can be relevant to the tripartite test. [28] The Alberta Court of Appeal has repeatedly confirmed that judicial review of interlocutory and procedural fairness issuesshould generally occur after the administrative proceeding is concluded, absent “rare and exceptional circumstances.” Fragmenting orbifurcating an administrative process is generally to be avoided: see Sturt v Chartered Professional Accountants of Alberta, 2023ABCA 146 at paras 7, 13 [Sturt]; Tahn v Law Society of Alberta, 2021 ABCA 139 at para 7; Alberta Veterinary Medical Association vSandhu, 2016 ABCA 336 at para 10 [Sandhu]. [29] Fragmentation and litigation by instalment create added expense for the parties, unnecessary delay, a waste of judicialresources, and the risk of an abuse of process: Workum v Alberta Securities Commission, 2006 ABCA 181 at para 2; Fawcett v Collegeof Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (Complaint Review Committee), 2022 ABCA 416 at para 19 [Fawcett]. [30] The bar is high to establish “rare and exceptional circumstances”: Sturt at para 13. [31] In Alberta, concerns about prematurity may be addressed as either a threshold issue or under the tripartite test: Fawcett at para12.

Here, I have adopted the latter approach, which is faithful to the framework endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in RJR-MacDonald. Should an interim stay be granted? [32] I will address each stage in turn.

a) Serious issue to be heard [33] The Court generally undertakes “an extremely limited review of the case on the merits”: RJR-MacDonald at 337-40. The firststage is generally a threshold to be met, rather than an effort to measure the strength of the applicant’s underlying claim.

[ 34 ] The Director argues there is a serious issue to be heard because the Board has pre-ordained the outcome of the appeal in determining that the Director amended the Surface Material Leases. Specifically, the Public Lands Act , s 15(3) sets out when the Director may amend a disposition, and none of the permitted conditions apply here.

Therefore, it is inevitable that the Board will find the Director exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing the Exemption Decision. [ 35 ] The Director argues further that there are serious issues about procedural fairness because the Board made its decision without the Director’s Record or submissions about the Record. [ 36 ] Syncrude concedes a serious issue for a hearing into the merits, subject to concerns about prematurity. [ 37 ] On a preliminary assessment of the merits, I find that the judicial review application is not frivolous or vexatious.

The merits raise serious questions about the procedural fairness and the reasonableness of the Issues Decision. [ 38 ] Syncrude’s concerns about prematurity, however, identify another challenge to the merits of this judicial review proceeding.

If exceptional circumstances are not present, the judicial review application will fail. [ 39 ] No definitive standards exist for assessing “rare and exceptional circumstances.” However, the Manitoba Court of Appeal summarized the state of the law in Thielmann v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of Manitoba , 2020 MBCA 8 at paras 49-50 [ Thielmann ] : In conclusion, the courts have not provided a definition of “exceptional circumstances” with respect to the prematurity principle.

The factors to be considered in exercising this discretion cannot be reduced to a checklist or a statement of general rules. The list of factors to be considered is not closed and courts will not have to apply every factor, but only those that are relevant. Among the factors that might be considered are: (

i) hardship/prejudice (including irreparable harm, urgency, and excessive delay); (ii) waste of resources if judicial review is not proceeded with; (iii) delays if judicial review proceeds; (iv) fragmentation of proceedings; (

v) strength of the case, including whether there is a clear abuse of process or proceedings are so deeply flawed that it is clear and obvious that judicial review will be successful; and (vi) the statutory context, including whether there is an adequate alternative remedy.

Furthermore, weight should always be given to the overarching consideration that an administrative tribunal should be given the opportunity to determine the issue first, and to provide reasons that can be considered by the court on any eventual review. [ 40 ] The Director contends that exceptional circumstances arise here because the Board has already made a final determination of the ultimate substantive issue. Allowing the statutory appeal process to run its course cannot cure the procedural unfairness or lead to a reasonable outcome.

Fragmentation is not a real concern because no substantive issues remain in the appeal. Prejudice will arise if the Minister makes a public decision based on erroneous recommendations from the Board. Reversing that decision after a successful judicial review application might not restore public confidence. Continuing with the appeal process will be a waste of resources. [ 41 ] Syncrude counters that the appeal still encompasses live issues. The Issues Decision describes the two primary issues as follows:

a) Did the Director have the jurisdiction to make the decision that varied the Surface Material Leases?

b) If the Board were to find that the Director had jurisdiction to make the decision, is the Director’s jurisdiction impacted by how the decision was implemented? [ 42 ] The Board ruled that the first issue about jurisdiction could consider whether the Director made material errors of fact, erred about the law, and exceeded his authority. On that basis, Syncrude asserts that live sub-issues remain:

a) Whether the Director had a lawful basis for making the Exemption Decision;

b) Whether the Director was permitted to apply the Exemption Decision retroactively; and

c) Whether the Director made errors in implementing the Exemption Decision. [ 43 ] Furthermore, the Board may identify other relevant considerations requiring input from the parties after reviewing their written submissions, resulting in additional commentary in the report to the Minister. Consequently, Syncrude disagrees that the appeal process is unnecessary and a waste of resources. [ 44 ] At this stage, the Director only needs to show a serious issue that rare and exceptional circumstances are present.

I find that the Director has met the burden, although just barely. [ 45 ] Procedural fairness concerns are not exceptional circumstances allowing the parties to bypass an administrative process, so long as that process allows the issues to be raised and an effective remedy to be granted: CB Powell Limited v Canada (Border Services Agency) , 2010 FCA 61 at para 33 [ CB Powell ] . F or exceptional circumstances to be established by procedural unfairness, the proceedings usually must be " so deeply flawed that it is clear and obvious that judicial review will be successful": Thielmann at para 50 .

The flaws must be incorrigible to justify early judicial intervention. [ 46 ] The presence of a “jurisdictional” issue, by itself, is not an exceptional circumstance allowing a party to launch a judicial review before the administrative process has been completed: CB Powell at paras 39-46 . See also Sandhu at paras 11-12 . [ 47 ] In this case, the Director contends that the procedural fairness concerns cannot be remedied because the ultimate substantive issue has been determined without the full evidentiary record, and the Board will not revisit that finding.

While he does not fully explain how the missing evidence and further submissions would change the Board’s analysis and therefore the resulting conclusion, I find that the procedural fairness concerns arguably cannot be remedied because the Board will not revisit the finding.

[48] The Board’s decision about the Variation Issue is characterized as a preliminary matter, but the Director’s concession aboutthe impact for the appeal potentially makes that finding determinative of the substantive issue in the appeal, leaving no other outstandingissues. If so, fragmentation might be avoided. [49] At this juncture, given that the factors for assessing “rare and exceptional circumstances” are inexact and flexible, I cannotexclude the possibility that the judge conducting the judicial review will reasonably exercise their discretion to find that suchcircumstances exist.

The Director’s argument on this point is not frivolous or vexatious. [50] The threshold of a serious issue for judicial review is satisfied.

a) Irreparable harm [51] Irreparable harm is harm that cannot be remedied if the judicial review succeeds. The harm either cannot be quantified inmonetary terms or cannot be cured, usually because one party cannot collect compensation from the other: RJR-MacDonald at 341. [52] At this stage of the analysis, the Court focuses on the nature of the harm, not its magnitude. The extent of the harm isconsidered when weighing the balance of convenience: Cleanit Greeint at para 99. [53] Harm that is speculative, hypothetical, or only arguable at best does not qualify as irreparable harm.

Administrativeinconvenience, without more, is not irreparable harm: Fawcett at para 23. See also: Laperrière v D & A MacLeod Company, 2010 FCA84 at para 20; Falkiner v Ontario (Director, Income Maintenance Branch, Ministry of Community and Social Services), (ON CA), 189 DLR (4th) 377, 2000 CarswellOnt 2537 at para 9 (CA). [54] The Director advances four arguments to demonstrate irreparable harm.

No evidence is offered in support. [55] First, the Director contends that if a stay is refused, no meaningful remedy will be available should the judicial reviewsucceed because of the operation of the Public Lands Act. [56] The Board might complete its hearing as early as September 25, 2023. Within 30 days after completion of the hearing, theBoard must submit a report to the Minister, including its recommendations and the representations of the parties: s 124(1) of the Act.

Onreceiving the report, the Minister may, by order, confirm, reverse or vary the Exemption Decision and make any decision that theDirector could have made, and make any further order the Minister considers necessary for the purpose of carrying out the decision: s124(3). [57] The submissions for the Director assert that the Minister will “very likely” make a final decision before the judicial reviewapplication is heard.

While the Director acknowledges having the authority to seek judicial review of the Minister’s decision, thesubmissions contend that judicial review will probably not be sought because directors appointed under the Public Lands Act respect theMinister’s decisions and, as a matter of practice, do not pursue judicial review of them. Further, the Minister would be acting reasonablyin relying on the Board’s recommendations. [58] This argument suffers from multiple flaws.

The Director does not explain how the Minister’s reliance on unreasonablerecommendations from the Board would render the Minister’s decision reasonable. Where a statutory appeal process contemplates anadvisory recommendation from an appeal board to a Minister, with the Minister making the ultimate decision, judicial review of theMinister’s decision is available, including for any alleged errors by the appeal board: McColl-Frontenac Inc v Alberta (Minister ofEnvironment), 2003 ABQB 303. [59] No evidence is before me that the Minister would make a swift decision while the judicial review is outstanding.

Theassertion that he would decide while the judicial review application remains outstanding is conjecture. [60] The contention that the Director would not pursue judicial review of the Minister’s decision is unsupported by evidence. Anypast practice not to undertake judicial review is an imprecise generalization, also unsupported by evidence.

Even if the practice exists,adherence to it would be self-imposed and avoidable. [61] I find no merit in this allegation of irreparable harm. [62] Second, the Director submits that irreparable harm arises where proceedings are duplicative, relying on comments inMuskwachees Ambulance Authority Ltd v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3197, 2007 ABQB 670 at para 11[Muskwachees]. If the appeal proceeds on the merits, but the outcome is set aside on judicial review, the Director argues that the newhearing will be a duplication of time and resources. [63] The risk of duplication is not irreparable harm.

The Director must demonstrate that the waste of time and resources is morethan mere inconvenience. Muskwachees involved a request to stay an eight-day hearing before the Alberta Labour Relations Boardfollowing which the successful party was almost certainly unable to obtain costs from the unsuccessful party. [64] Here, the hearing process is substantially simpler. Only written submissions will be exchanged. The Director contends that themerits are pre-ordained because the ultimate issue has been determined. Accordingly, his own written submissions should be limited.The inconvenience will be minimal.

No evidence suggests otherwise. [65] The Board considered a similar argument when the Director applied to postpone the hearing process. The Board dismissedthose concerns in the Postponement Decision at para 47: The Board finds it would not be necessary to hold a full rehearing of the appeal should the Judicial Review be decided in the Director’sfavour. As suggested by Syncrude, the Board could invite the Parties to make written submissions on the Variation Question if needed.The Board could consider the matter and determine its impact, if any, on the Board’s Report and Recommendation to the Minister.

Regardless of the Board’s findings, the Board could issue a focused Report and Recommendations addressing the matter for the Minister’s consideration. [ 66 ] Unlike the circumstances in Muskwachees , the Board has the authority to award costs under s 232 of the Public Lands Administration Regulation and s 25 of the Interim Appeals Procedure Rules for Complex Appeals . If the additional expense to the Director is consequential, costs may be pursued against Syncrude. [ 67 ] In short, concerns about duplicative proceedings are speculative and unsupported by evidence.

If the Director succeeds with the judicial review, the resulting duplication would be mere administrative inconvenience. This assertion of irreparable harm is without merit. [ 68 ] Third, the Director suggests that if the Minister’s decision is not judicially reviewed, the Minister’s initial decision might engage the doctrine of res judicata , preventing the Minister from revoking the decision after the Board’s report and recommendations are set aside. No authority is offered in support of this proposition. [ 69 ] The simple solution is to seek judicial review of the Minister’s decision.

The Board’s report and recommendations are a procedural step under s 124 of the Public Lands Act culminating in the Minister’s decision about the appeal. The recommendations are the “genesis” of the Minister’s decision: Normko Resources Inc v Alberta (Minister of Environment and Parks) , 2022 ABCA 388 at para 5 [ Normko ].

If the report and recommendations are set aside, the Minister’s decision is fatally flawed. [ 70 ] In any event, the suggestion that the Minister cannot revoke and replace an initial decision is unpersuasive. [ 71 ] Irreparable harm based on res judicata is not established. [ 72 ] Fourth, the Director argues that the Minister, the Department, and the Alberta Government risk reputational harm if the Minister accepts a recommendation to reverse the Exemption Decision and makes a decision that is contrary to the findings in the Auditor General’s report.

The Minister, in particular, could be subjected to “significant public criticism.” [ 73 ] This argument is based on conjecture, not evidence. [ 74 ] The Minister’s obligation under s 124 is to act in an adjudicative capacity: Normko at para 9 . The Minister, the Department and the Alberta Government serve the public interest when the rule of law is followed. Speculation about the public’s

interpretation of the Auditor General’s report and whether the public would be critical of the Board’s recommendations and the Minister’s decision is not evidence. [ 75 ] Even if the Minister makes a decision, and that decision is set aside on judicial review because of the Board’s error, the Court’s reasons are available to the public.

The assertion that the Minister, the Department, or the Alberta Government would be faulted for the Board’s findings and recommendations is conjecture. [ 76 ] At this stage of the tripartite test, only harm suffered directly by the applicant is usually considered: Knox v Conservative Party of Canada , 2007 ABCA 143 at para 10 ; Cleanit Greenit at para 102 ; Arctic Cat, Inc v Bombardier Recreational Products Inc , 2020 FCA 116 at para 32 . The Director identifies no direct harm.

Even if reputational damage to the Minister, the Department or the Alberta Government may be considered as public interest factors, that evidence is not before me. [ 77 ] In

summary, the Director has failed to establish irreparable harm if the Issues Decision is not stayed.

b) Balance of convenience [ 78 ] The third stage of the analysis weighs the competing harm to each party depending on whether the stay is granted. The public interest is also a consideration in the balance because governmental activity is involved. [ 79 ] The Director has demonstrated no irreparable harm to himself, but fairly concedes that the delay occasioned by a stay would inconvenience Syncrude. [ 80 ] Syncrude is an overholding tenant on one of the leases because of the appeal.

The Exemption Decision has created uncertainty about the extent to which the Department might seek retroactive collection of royalties. In the Postponement Decision, at para 45, the Board acknowledged the harm to Syncrude if the appeal is delayed: The Board finds the overholding tenancy status of Syncrude’s [Surface Material Leases] renewals and the potential retroactivity of [the Department’s] collection actions, create uncertainty for Syncrude. The Board finds uncertainty for a business operation, such as Syncrude, is a significant hindrance for its financial planning and operations.

The Board finds there would be a high degree and likelihood of inconvenience, prejudice, or cost for Syncrude if the Board postponed the hearing. [ 81 ] To mitigate that prejudice, if the stay is granted, the Director proposes to consent to a corresponding stay of any enforcement efforts under the Public Lands Act and the Public Lands Administration Regulation with respect to the Surface Material Leases. [ 82 ] I find, however, that a suspension of enforcement does not entirely mitigate the commercial uncertainty. Financial planning and operations will be disrupted until the appeal is resolved.

Delaying the appeal on the chance that the judicial review will be successful increases the period of uncertainty. While an outstanding judicial review application also creates some commercial uncertainty, I agree with Syncrude’s submission that this risk is probably more manageable for the company. [ 83 ] The public interest is served by allowing a regulatory or statutory appeal process to run its course: Fawcett at para 24 ; Okojie at paras 50-51 ; James at para 15.

In the Postponement Decision, at para 40, the Board confirmed its responsibility to conduct the appeal hearing in an “efficient and expeditious manner.”

[ 84 ] Having considered the competing interests, and recognizing that the Director has failed to establish any irreparable harm, I conclude that the balance of convenience favours denying the stay application. Conclusion [ 85 ] The Director’s application for a stay is dismissed. [ 86 ] If the parties wish to speak to costs, they are to approach me within 21 days. Heard on the 14 th day of July, 2023. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 27 th day of July, 2023 . Kevin Feth J.C.K.B.A.

Appearances: Andrea Simmonds, Alberta Justice and Solicitor General Legal Services, Civil Law Branch for the Applicant Dan Collins, Dentons Canada LLP for Syncrude Canada Ltd. Janet Hutchison, Hutchison Law for the Alberta Public Lands Appeal Board