Recent Developments in Surface Rights Law - Pipeline Right-of-Way Compensation - Annual Payments and Injurious Affection - Federal and Alberta Developments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landowners have recently advanced novel claims for right-of-way compensation in connection with both federally and provincially regulated pipelines. The compensation paid for the acquisition of pipeline rights-of-way in Canada has typically been, with some notable exceptions, in the form of one-time payments for the value of the interest in land acquired, and any injurious affection to the remaining lands of the owner. However, relying on the precedents established by a few pipeline companies and the provisions for annual or periodic compensation under the Alberta Surface Rights Act and the National Energy Board Act landowners have attempted to secure compensation awards in the form of rental payments, the present value of which is several times greater than the compensation historically payable as a lump sum. This article examines two recent court decisions — the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench decision in Zubick v. Corridor Pipeline Limited and the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling in Balisky v. Canada (Minister of Natural Resources) — as well as a group of National Energy Board Act Pipeline Arbitration Committee awards in Alberta, and discusses their impact on pipeline rights-of-way compensation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".