An Alberta farmer who fought a pipeline company for 15 years over a $10,000 manure bill is thrilled the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in his favour.
“I feel 100 years younger,” said Vernon Smith, 82, of Mayerthorpe.
In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that Alliance Pipeline Ltd. must pay what Smith spent to reclaim his land and thousands of dollars in court costs associated with fighting the battle for the past 15 years.
Meaghan Conroy, a lawyer representing Smith, said the ruling would have implications for landowners across the Prairies, especially if they take their fight against energy companies to court.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
She said energy companies’ threats to take farmers to court and their ability to drag cases through an expensive appeal process have a “chilling effect on farmers.”
Conroy said taking a $10,000 manure bill to the Supreme Court was a “bit of a stretch,” but the court agreed to hear the case last November because of the increasing number of pipelines and confusion about the rules regarding pipelines and landowners.
“We needed clarity on this,” she said.
Landowners don’t have a choice if a pipeline crosses their land, Conroy added, but they can negotiate the conditions and compensation.
In 1996, Alliance Pipeline laid a 36-inch high-pressure gas pipeline through one quarter section of Smith’s farmland.
The original agreement required Alliance to apply a layer of well-rotted manure or loam on the field where the pipeline crossed the land.
Alliance didn’t reclaim the land and the following year Smith presented it with a $9,828 bill for manure and reclamation work. Alliance rejected the bill and offered to pay $2,500.
Smith then used a federal arbitration process for what was supposed to be a quick and cost-effective resolution to the dispute.
Instead, the fight went through two arbitration committee hearings, one Court of Queen’s Bench action, one judicial review, one appellate review proceeding and tens of thousands of dollars.
Smith won the first appeal and lost the second, at which point he said he considered abandoning the fight because it was becoming too costly.
He said the money he was using for the appeals was what the farming family had set aside for retirement. Instead, the family and their lawyer took a chance and asked the Supreme Court to hear their case.
“Be damned if we didn’t win it,” said Smith.
