Nursery trees ruled to be chattels - claim for spray damage barred by limitation period

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench has dismissed a claim for spray damage caused to nursery trees (Roundup from a neighbouring wheat field) on the basis that the applicable limitation period had expired.  The key issue was the characterization of the trees - were they fixtures to the real property (the land) or were they chattels (movable property not affixed to the land)?  If they were fixtures, then a six-year limitation period would apply.  If they were chattels, a two-year limitation period would apply.  The action was commenced nearly four years after damage to the trees was first observed.

What is annexed or attached to the land becomes part of the land (a fixture), but there must be an intention to annex or attach evidenced by the degree of annexation and the object of the annexation.  In this case, the claimant argued that the trees were growing crops and, therefore, part of the real property (the land).  The defendants argued that the trees were planted only for the purpose of storage until they would be sold or used by the claimant, remaining as chattels (not fixed to the land).

The Court sided with the defendants and found that the nursery trees were chattels.  They were treated as the claimant's "stock in trade - as inventory".  The trees were never intended to be permanently attached to the land or to constitute an improvement to the land.  As a result, the two-year limitation period applied and barred the claim for damages.

Read the decision at: Noralta Northern Alberta Trees Inc. v. Plato Enterprises (Alberta) Ltd.

Manitoba Court determines that proposed pipeline is provincial, not federal

In a post last December, I reported about a case in Manitoba being fought over the jurisdiction of a proposed pipeline - federal or provincial.  A group of affected landowners had sought leave to appeal a decision of the Surface Rights Board and had also requested the judicial review of Manitoba's decision to approve the pipeline.  The leave to appeal matter was put on hold pending the outcome of the judicial review.  In January of this year, the Court of Queen's Bench issued its decision on the judicial review.

The landowners applied to the Court for an order declaring that the pipeline is interprovincial and, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the Province of Manitoba.  They had previously applied to the National Energy Board (NEB) for the same order, but that application was rejected.

On the basis of the test set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Westcoast Energy Inc. v. Canada (National Energy Board), the Court ruled that the Manitoba pipeline was provincial in nature and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the Province.  The Court found that the EOG pipeline (the one at issue in the case) and the MIPL pipeline (the cross-border pipeline to which the EOG pipeline would connect) were not a single federal undertaking, and that the EOG pipeline is not integral to the operation of the MIPL pipeline.  On that basis, the EOG pipeline did not become part of the interprovincial MIPL pipeline for the purpose of determining its jurisdiction.  As the EOG pipeline is located within the boundaries of Manitoba, it is a provincial pipeline.

Read the decision at: Daniels et al v. EOG Resources et al.

Is the pipeline provincial or inter-provincial?

Every so often, the question of whether a pipeline is subject to provincial regulation or to federal regulation (by the NEB) comes before the courts.  The issue is now before the courts in Manitoba according to a recent decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.  A number of landowners affected by a proposed pipeline filed applications for leave to appeal a decision of the Surface Rights Board of Manitoba to the Court of Appeal.  They then brought a motion seeking to adjourn the leave to appeal applications pending a decision of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench regarding a judicial review of the decsion by Mantioba's Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines (the "Minister") to grant a permit to EOG Resources Canada Inc. (EOG) to construct the pipeline.

The intended purpose of the pipeline, which would cross through the landowners' properties, is to link up to another proposed pipeline that would cross the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border (the "MIPL Pipeline").  The MIPL pipeline project requires approval from the NEB as it is an interprovincial (federal) pipeline.

EOG maintains that, although its pipeline would connect directly to the interprovincial MIPL Pipeline, its pipeline is intended to be wholly within the province of Manitoba.  Therefore, the EOG pipeline would be subject to provincial approval, as was granted by the Minister.  The landowners contest the jurisdiction of the Minister and brought an application for judicial review of the Minister's decision to approve the pipeline on constitutional grounds.

EOG opposed the adjournment of the leave to appeal applications, asserting that a delay would cause it prejudice.  The Court disagreed.  It found that it was not a practical use of judicial resources to have two cases ongoing with respect to the same issues.  It also reasoned that the Court of Queen's Bench proceeding may result in additional evidence necessary to determine the constitutional issue (i.e. the jursidiction of the proposed pipeline).  The Court of Appeal found that these reasons outweighed any potential prejudice to EOG.

Read the decision at: EOG Resources Canada Inc. v. Saskitoba.

Manitoba Court of Appeal upholds convictions for maintaining illegal trenches

Employees from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in Manitoba had investigated the unauthorized draining of wetlands on a farm in 1998.  The landowner obtained licenses from DNR for four specific wetlands, but the licence for Wetland #1 prohibited any drainage.  In 2000, a man-made trench draining Wetland #1 was discovered.  A charge was laid by the DNR, but subsequently stayed.

 

By 2008, it was discovered that both Wetlands #1 and #2 had been completely drained with two man-made trenches, neither of which had been authorized by DNR.  Wetland #1 appeared to have been cultivated and worked through with farm machinery.

 

The landowner was charged under the Water Rights Act with two counts of establishing or maintaining illegal trenches without a licence.  The trial judge convicted the landowner and fined him $1,500 on each count.  Although he determined that there was no evidence that the landowner had established, constructed or actively maintained the trenches, the trial judge decided that the fact that the landowner knew about the existence of the trenches and did nothing to eliminate them was evidence of passive maintenance sufficient to support the convictions.

 

On summary conviction appeal, the appeal judge determined that passive acts of maintenance were not sufficient to support convictions, but nevertheless upheld the convictions because: 1) for the first trench, there was evidence that a crop was planted and harvested there, meaning that the trench was actively maintained; and, 2) for the second trench, because it had not previously existed, the only reasonable inference was that it had been established or constructed by the landowner.

At the further appeal before the Court of Appeal, the Crown conceded that the summary conviction appeal judge had erred by upholding the convictions on the basis of facts not supported by the trial record.  There was simply no evidence that the appellant landowner had constructed or established the second trench in the time period cited in the charge or that he had planted and harvested in the first trench.  The question on the appeal therefore turned on the effect of "passive maintenance".

The appellant landowner argued that the prohibited act or "actus reus" of the offence required proof of active maintenance of the trenches; the Crown argued that keeping the trenches in existence without active maintenance would be sufficient.  The Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown's position and ruled that "maintenance" included keeping the trenches in existence without active maintenance.  The Crown did not need to prove that the landowner knew the trenches were on his land or that he actively maintained them.

Read the decision at: R. v. Dickson (W.A.)

Canadian Wheat Board loses appeal in negligent misrepresentation case dating from 1982

In late August 1982, widespread frost damage occurred to Western Canada’s premier Canada Western Red Spring wheat (CWRS), resulting in significant degrading of the crop. The Canadian Wheat Board (the CWB), along with the Canadian Grain Commission (the CGC), elected to market the damaged wheat under the specification “Wheat – Ex. Special Bin” (WSB) on the basis, despite its visual degradation, that it “possesses what is known as ‘fair’ milling quality and would be quite suitable for milling purposes.”

Pagnan S.p.A., an Italian corporation, purchased a large quantity of WSB from ConAgra Limited (Agro), an accredited CWB exporter. When the first cargo of wheat was delivered to Italy, it was found to be inferior and not of fair milling quality. Pagnan and Albionex together (Pagnan having sold, then repurchased the cargo from the other plaintiff, Albionex (Overseas) Limited) commenced an action in 1985, claiming against Agro for breach of contract and against the CWB based on the representations made with respect to the characteristics and quality of WSB. Agro crossclaimed against the CWB, asserting that it too had relied upon the CWB’s representations.

The trial judge in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench delivered lengthy reasons for decision in July 2009, holding Agro liable to the plaintiffs for breach of contract and the CWB liable for negligent misrepresentation. Agro’s crossclaim against the CWB was allowed. Judgment was eventually entered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $4,642,392.40, inclusive of interest to the date of judgment, plus costs. Judgment was also entered (in favour of Agro) in a similar amount against the CWB.

Agro and the CWB then appealed their liability and damages, and the CWB appealed Agro’s crossclaim judgment. The plaintiffs also cross appealed, arguing that damages should be increased.  None of these appeals or cross-appeals succeeded at the Court of Appeal.

Read the decision at: Albionex (Overseas) Ltd. et al. v. Conagra Ltd. et al.

Wild Oats Grainworld 2012 - Winnipeg, MB - Feb. 26-28

Liz Robertson at CAFA passed this on to me.  Read the Program Brochure at: Preliminary Program.

Farm divorce case prompts SCC to suggest changes to bankruptcy laws

The Supreme Court of Canada has released a decision upholding a Manitoba Court of Appeal ruling about an alleged loophole in Canada's bankruptcy laws.  The case involved former spouses who filed for divorce in 2000.  The husband lived on the family farm and was the sole registered owner of the farm.  Manitoba, like Ontario, has a system of equalization of family assets rather than a division of the family property.  That meant that the husband could keep the farm but would owe his ex-wife her share of the value of the farm (or the increase in the value of the farm during the marriage).

In this case, the spouses consented to a valuation of the property to be done by the Court.  However, before a valuation of the family property by a Court Master could be undertaken, the husband made an assignment in bankruptcy.  The Master subsequently found that the wife was entitled to an equalization payment of about $41,000, but she was not able to collect.  The Manitoba Court of Appeal determined that the wife's claim was "provable" in bankruptcy and had been extinguished when the husband's bankruptcy was discharged in 2002.

As a result of the "loophole", not only was the husband discharged from his duty to pay the equalization payment, but he kept the farm.  Under Manitoba law, the farm was exempt from the bankruptcy proceeding.  The wife attempted through the appeal process to persuade the Court that she should receive her equalization payment since it was, at least in part, based on the value of the farm which was not part of the bankruptcy at all.  Both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court disagreed.  The Court of Appeal noted that the wife had taken no steps over several years to attack the bankruptcy discharge (note that the wife had not been given notice of the bankruptcy in the first place and only discovered it after her ex-husband had been discharged).

Justice Lebel of the Supreme Court commented on the apparent unfairness created by inconsistencies between family law and bankruptcy law in various jurisdictions and suggested that changes may be necessary:

It seems to me that this matter is ripe for legislative attention so as to ensure that the principles of bankruptcy law and family law are compatible rather than being at cross-purposes.  However, until such legislative changes are made, creditor spouses should be alive not only to the pitfalls of the BIA, but also to the importance of the remedies available under it in such situations.

Read the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision at: Schreyer v. Schreyer - Man CA.

Read the Supreme Court of Canada decision at: Schreyer v. Schreyer - SCC.

Read the CBC News Story at: Top court rules bankruptcy can break divorce deal - Canada - CBC News.

Court says neither party to cow-calf lease agreement conducted himself appropriately

Between 2004 and 2006, a cow-calf lease agreement was in place between Terry Pogson and Claude Martin.  Pogson owned about 76 cows, but took a job in the city and decided to lease out the cows to another operator.  Martin took the cows on the basis of an oral agreement that was later reduced to writing.  Pogson leased the cows and provided some pasture at his farm.  He was to receive 1/3 of the calves and would pay 1/3 of the expenses.

Problems arose as calving began and Martin realized that there were a number of open cows (that would not calf).  As a result, Pogson and Martin agreed that Martin would not be charged for the pasture use and would not be charged for 76 bales for which he had previously agreed to pay $20 each.  Martin was also concerned when he discovered that Pogson's cows had been vaccinated against Bovine Viral Diarrhea (BVD) in or about 2001 when a cow purchased from a neighbour tested positive for the illness.  The Court accepted the evidence of Pogson that the vaccinated cows were free of BVD given that any infected cow would have died as a result of being given the live vaccine.

At some point later in the contract, Martin sold some of the cattle that had been leased to him.  The overall result of the problems was a lawsuit in which both parties claimed various damages from the other.  The trial judge concluded the following about the parties and their agreement:

It is very easy to draw the conclusion that the plaintiff was a very disinterested owner-lessor. He did not look in on his herd as often as he should have. He never demanded an annual accounting. When the lease was terminated, he could only guess at the number of calves which should have been coming to him. Given the nature of this type of agreement which gives the lessee total authority over the cows, which remain the property of the lessor, the plaintiff should have been more diligent in ensuring that his investment was protected. It is impossible for him to complain when a dispute arose that the number of calves he is entitled to should be higher than the numbers put forward by the defendant.

Respecting the defendant's evidence, I must say I was very unfavourably impressed by it.

The defendant testified that he was treating the agreement as “null and void” within three months from the time he took the cattle. This is prior to the written agreement which the defendant himself prepared on his farm letterhead. The written agreement reflected the terms of the oral agreement. This spoke volumes to me as to the defendant’s attitude. Based on this testimony and the defendant’s later actions (as outlined below), it was clear to me that the defendant never had any intention of living up to his part of the agreement. He wanted all the benefits due to him and more but expected to pay little or nothing to the plaintiff.

In the end, the Court credited Pogson certain amounts for pasture used and cows sold and credited Martin for the value of some calves, transport costs and vaccine costs.  The end result was a judgment in favour of Pogson in the amount of $3,736.00.

Read the decision at: Pogson v Martin.

Claim for loss of grain contaminated in arson fire struck as abuse of process

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench has struck out a claim by Raymond Michaud as an abuse of process on the basis that it was an impermissible collateral attack on a decision made by the Director of the Department of Conservation.  What is most interesting about the case is the fact situation.  On February 12, 2002, a fire occurred at Michaud's farm. He was injured and taken to hospital. An environmental officer with the Department of Conservation attended the farm and observed that the residence was completely destroyed and buildings and grain silos were saturated with a combination of gasoline and heating and/or diesel fuel. Samples of grain indicated the presence of elevated gasoline vapours and the environmental officer was of the view that there was potential for a further explosion or fire because of the condition of the grain.

Clean-up orders were issued, but Michaud failed to clean up the property.  The Department went ahead and did so and sent the bill to Michaud.  In his statement of claim filed in November 2004, Michaud initially sought a declaration that the Director’s three orders were made without jurisdiction and null and void. He later amended his action on December 23, 2008 to include a claim for $113,175 being the value of the grain destroyed, alleging that the destruction of the grain was pursuant to an order made without jurisdiction or unreasonably implemented.

The case before the Court of Queen's Bench actually came as an appeal from an earlier dismissal of the action by a Master (not a Judge, but an administrative official that exercises some of the functions of a judge).  On the appeal of the dismissal by Michaud, the Department put before the Court the fact that Michaud had been convicted of a number of criminal offences including arson arising from the fire at his farm.  The Court agreed with Michaud's lawyer that the convictions were irrelevant to the issue at hand.  However, that still didn't save the action.  The Director had made its decision and the only way to challenge that decision was through an appeal process or an application for judicial review.  Failing success on those challenges, Michaud was not permitted to sue the province on the basis that the Director's orders should not have been issued in the first place.

Read the decision at: Michaud v. Government of Manitoba.

Saskatchewan lawsuit against CWB moved to Manitoba

In December, I wrote about a Saskatchewan farm, Hudye Farms of Norquay, SK, suing the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) for loss of income, breach of fiduciary duty and defamation: SK farmer sues CWB.  In response to the suit, the CWB made a motion to the Court of Queen's Bench for the following relief:

1. Challenging the Saskatchewan Court’s territorial competence over the Canadian Wheat Board or these proceedings under The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, S.S. 1997, c. C-41.1 as am. (“CJPTA”);

2. In the alternative, the defendant Canadian Wheat Board asked the court to decline to exercise any territorial competence pursuant to Rule 99 of the Queen’s Bench Rules and ss. 10(1) of the CJPTA on the basis that the courts of Manitoba are a more appropriate forum in which to hear these proceedings;

3. An order pursuant to ss. 12(1) of the CJPTA transferring the proceedings to the courts of Manitoba; and

4. For costs on a solicitor client basis.

The plaintiffs and the CWB agreed that they were contractually bound as producer and marketing board. Much of the argument and dialogue therefore focused around defining the contract, the role of Cargill Limited as the producer’s agent, and, the effect of a term in the contract which provides that the law of Manitoba will apply to any disputes and that the courts of Manitoba shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any proceedings arising out of the commercial contract and relations created by the contract.
The Court was left to decide whether the Saskatchewan action should be stayed because the proper forum for the lawsuit was Manitoba:

It is undisputed law that Hudye Farms Inc. bears the onus and burden of proving strong cause as to why a stay should be denied the Canadian Wheat Board in the face of the forum and choice of law clause. The language of the forum and law selection clause is clear and unambiguous. Refer again to the quotation from E.K. Motors at paragraph 13, quoted earlier. Then consider further Barclay J.’s three step analysis in the Willick decision also quoted earlier. If the Manitoba courts have jurisdiction over these disputes/proceedings, should this Saskatchewan action be struck, stayed or transferred to the Manitoba courts? If Manitoba courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction, should this action be transferred to the Manitoba courts pursuant to the CJPTA?

In the end, the Court found that the proper forum based on the contract was Manitoba, and so an order has been made transferring the case to the Manitoba courts.

Read the decision at: Hudye Farms Inc. v. Canadian Wheat Board.

How much should it cost to rent land located underneath power lines?

In 1997, The Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board (“Manitoba Hydro”) leased land beneath Manitoba Hydro transmission lines to Chuck Arnason Golf and Sports Ltd. (“Arnason”). The rent was set at $6,000 per year, subject to a rent review every five years based on a formula in the lease.  In 2006, The Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation (“the MHRC”) announced it would expropriate Arnason’s lease, which it ultimately did in May 2009.  In early 2008, relying on an appraisal of the MHRC, Manitoba Hydro raised Arnason’s rent, for the third five‑year period, tenfold to approximately $60,000 per year. Arnason said this was wrong and sought a declaration from the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench regarding the interpretation of the renewal formula in the lease.

The renewal formula was as follows:

3. Future rental rates shall be established by means of the following formula: The Lessor shall determine the current market value of the leased land (as vacant) using standard appraisal practices of the Appraisal Institute of Canada. … [emphasis added]

Arnason argued that the formula should be interpreted to be subject to Manitoba Hydro's continuing use and interest in the land for electrical distribution and transmission lines and communication lines.  Manitoba Hydro and the MHRC countered that "as vacant" meant there should be no consideration of the use of the land by Manitoba Hydro (which would devalue the land for the lessee and result in a lower level of rent). 

Following an in-depth analysis of the lease contract, the Court concluded that future rent was to be determined on the basis of the following assumptions:

(a) future rent is to be based on the current market value of the leased land;
(b) the current market value shall take into account, or be subject to, the leased land being a “secondary use of the land”, always subject to the primary use of the leased land being Manitoba Hydro’s continuing operations and use as more fully described in the lease’s preamble;

(c) the current market value shall consider the leased land zoned as agricultural, or such other zoning that may be applicable considering Manitoba Hydro’s continuing operations and use as more fully described in the lease’s preamble; and

(d) other than Manitoba Hydro’s continuing operations and use as more fully described in the lease’s preamble, the leased land is vacant of any improvements.

In other words, the Court agreed with Arnason that the "as vacant" value of the land must include consideration of Manitoba Hydro's ongoing use of the land.  "As vacant" meant vacant of any improvements over and above the Manitoba Hydro improvements. 

Read the decision at: Chuck Arnason Golf and Sports Ltd. v. The Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board et al.

Manitoba farmer wins Leo Birdsfoot Trefoil lawsuit

Manitoba farmer Engelbert Fischer was awarded a judgment of $21,006.79 plus pre-judgment interest against Dyck Forage & Grasses Ltd. in a claim before the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba.  Fischer had sold his 2002 and 2003 crops to the Defendant company under a contract that required the seed to satisfy a germination count of 75.  The Defendant's representative told Fischer that the germination count was in the 90's and agreed to pay $1.50 per pound for the seed.  Then the Defendant turned around and paid only $1.25, saying the germination count was insufficient.  The real dispute seemed to arise in 2004 when prices for the seed escalated to $2.00 per pound, a price the Defendant company was not willing to pay. 

In ruling in favour of Fischer, the Court found that:

(i) there was no basis for the defendant’s unilaterally reducing the price of the seed to $1.25 per pound, let alone $1.30 or $1.40 as indicated in the written agreement;

(ii) there was no discussion at the inception of the transaction of analysis by anyone other than the defendant’s employee;

(iii) there was no discussion of the seed having to satisfy a purchaser; and

(iv) there was no discussion that the plaintiff would have to wait for payment until all the seed was sold or that he would have to sell the 2004 crop as part of the transaction.

Read the decision at: Fischer v. Dyck Forage and Grasses Ltd.

"Devastating admissions" by defendant in cattle case leads to summary judgment

Though the test may vary from province to province, a judge may grant summary judgment generally when there is no genuine issue for trial.  That is, if there is no legal issue that needs to be determined at trial in order to dispose of a case, one of the parties to a lawsuit may apply to the Court to have the case decided by way of a motion for summary judgment.

In a recent decision on a summary judgment motion brought by the plaintiff, Master Harrison of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench found that "devastating" admissions made by the defendant in the case during examinations for discovery were determinative of the case.  For that reason, there would be no purpose in going to trial and summary judgment was granted.

The case in question involved an "arrangement" where the plaintiff would receive on a regular basis requests or orders from the defendant to purchase cattle.  The plaintiff would go out and buy the cattle, usually at auction, and then deliver the cattle to the defendant and render bills to the defendant.  Eventually the defendant refused to pay and the arrangement ended.  The plaintiff sued for some $80,000.  The defendant counter-sued for $12,000.

Summary judgment was granted in the plaintiff's action because the defendant admitted during examinations for discovery that he had acknowledged the debt to the plaintiff and told the plaintiff that he would pay:

Yes. I offered him that because I lost so much money. And I said, ‘Okay. You know what? I will pay you so much a month until it’s paid, until you are paid.’ But that’s it for us. We are done.”

On the defendant's countersuit, the Court could not grant summary judgment.  The Master ruled that:

This court is not prepared to spend twenty pages of time and space in terms of a detailed analysis of the issues arising in the counterclaim. The evidence of the corporate representatives of the parties is so conflicted that only a trial, in my opinion, would resolve the substantial credibility issues outstanding within the counterclaim. It is true that the affidavit evidence before the court regarding the faxing of invoices concerning the counterclaim cattle does put the corporate defendant in an unfavourable light. However, the overall calibre of the said evidence is simply not strong enough show that the plaintiff has met the legal burden.

Read the decision at: ADJ Livestock v 4486413 Manitoba Ltd.

Manitoba introducing provincial surcharge on transfer of marketing quota

A reader of this blog has brought to my attention a budgetary measure being introduced in Manitoba which will see a 2% provincial surcharge imposed on the transfer of dairy, egg and poultry quota in the province.  I have reported on several cases involving the Dairy Farmers of Ontario quota transfer assessment (15%), but the Manitoba plan differs in that the levy is a provincial surcharge on top of any other assessment that may be imposed by the marketing board itself.  Is this a new tax?  Will other provinces follow Manitoba's lead?

The levy was announced as part of Manitoba's provincial budget earlier this year.  Read the AgCanada article on producer response to the levy at: AgCanada.

Read the response of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) at: Letter to Hon. Stan Struthers.

New farm building code worries pork producers

 Click here to read the story: CBC News - Manitoba - New farm building code worries pork producers

Southwest farmers tell oil company to forget pipeline - Winnipeg Free Press

Southwest farmers tell oil company to forget pipeline - Winnipeg Free Press

It's a showdown between a group of Manitoba farmers, who want to get their crops in the ground, and a big oil company from Houston. ...

Construction underway on Manitoba's largest wind farm

CBC News - Manitoba - Construction underway on wind farm

An official groundbreaking for a wind farm near St. Joseph, MB was held on Thursday. The project proponent, Pattern Energy of San Francisco, expects the first turbines to be in operation by the end of this year. Read the CBC News story at the link above.

My original post about this project is at: Deal Struck to Build $345 million wind farm.

Manitoba farmer ordered to clean up cluttered yard

CBC News - Manitoba - Farmer ordered to clean cluttered yard

Drago Kucas has lost his appeal of Winnipeg decision ordering him to cleap up his property in south St. Vital. Kucas has until June to clean up or the city will do it and assess the costs to his tax bill.

Enbridge oil spills into Manitoba creek

CBC News - Manitoba - Oil spills into Manitoba creek

A leak in an Enbridge pipeline has spilled 1,500 litres of oil into a creek near the town of Virden, MB. Click on the CBC link above to view the news story. For pictures of the spill and details of the clean up, check out the Kipperstein Press blog and the message board at eBrandon.ca.

Deal struck to build $345M wind farm

CBC News - Manitoba - Deal struck to build $345M wind farm

Construction on the 138-megawatt wind project — the second major one in the province — will begin immediately, Premier Greg Selinger announced Monday.  The project's go-ahead was made possible because of a 27-year power purchase deal between Manitoba Hydro and San Francisco-based Pattern Energy Group.  Pattern will invest $95 million and Manitoba Hydro will loan the company up to $260 million to be repaid over 20 years.

Last September, The Winnipeg Free Press reported on the transfer of the project from Babcock & Brown, a failing Australian investment company, to a new entity called Pattern Energy: Wind farm out of breath.  The paper provided the following information about the project's specifications at the time (note the significant difference in the proposed size of the project):

Canada's biggest wind farm?


Location: Southern Manitoba, between St. Joseph and Letellier

Size: 300 megawatts -- 100 megawatts more than the much-touted Wuskwatim dam

Cost: $800 million, at last count

Turbines: 130 turbines pumping 2.3 megawatts each

Scheduled completion date: 2011

Next biggest wind farm in Canada: Ontario's Wolfe Island farm, near Kingston. It's 197 megawatts

Challenger: Quebec, which has a 300-megawatt wind farm slated to open in 2012 or 2013

Read CBC's original November 2008 story about the project: Canada's largest wind farm to be set up in Southern Manitoba.