Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiffs claimed trespass and nuisance arising from CNRL's installation of culverts on a road crossing their private land.

• The court determined that Mile 98 Road within DL 2207 is private property subject to a public right of passage.

• CNRL’s reliance on a road use permit was ineffective due to lack of statutory notice and unresolved land conflicts.

• The installation of culverts and resulting flooding constituted both trespass and nuisance.

• Plaintiffs failed to prove or quantify any damages or request appropriate equitable remedies.

• Ultimately, the court dismissed the claim despite finding partial liability, as no actionable relief was established.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved
In this case, the plaintiffs—five private individuals—owned a parcel of land (DL 2207) in northeastern British Columbia. Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL), a major oil and gas producer, used Mile 98 Road, a route crossing through the plaintiffs’ land, to access oil and gas infrastructure. The plaintiffs alleged that CNRL’s placement of culverts on the road caused flooding and dust issues on their land, giving rise to claims of trespass and nuisance. CNRL defended its actions on the basis that the road was a public highway and that it held regulatory permits authorizing its use and maintenance of the road.

Ownership and status of Mile 98 Road
A central issue was whether the section of Mile 98 Road running through DL 2207 belonged to the plaintiffs. The court found that the land, including the portion under the road, had been conveyed to the plaintiffs' predecessor in a Crown grant, with only a reservation for public passage. Therefore, the road remained private property, although subject to public use. This meant CNRL could not rely on general public access rights to justify its infrastructural modifications.

Invalidity of road use permits
CNRL claimed that its culvert installation and road maintenance were authorized under a 2017 road use permit issued under the Energy Resource Activities Act and, earlier, under a 1991 predecessor permit. The court rejected this defense, finding that the 2017 permit was invalid as against the plaintiffs due to non-compliance with statutory notice requirements. It also found no evidence that the 1991 permit or any predecessor grants had properly authorized use of the land within DL 2207. Any rights held were insufficient to cover the specific activities—culvert placement and water diversion—conducted by CNRL.

Trespass and nuisance findings
The court held that CNRL’s actions in placing culverts and altering water flow constituted trespass, as they exceeded the permitted scope of public passage. The flooding caused by these culverts was also deemed to be a private nuisance, constituting a substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs’ use of their land. However, the court found insufficient evidence linking CNRL specifically to the dust complained of, as the plaintiffs failed to show that CNRL vehicles (as opposed to other road users) were the source.

Lack of damages and ultimate dismissal
Despite finding liability for trespass and partial nuisance, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim. This was because the plaintiffs did not present any evidence quantifying their damages or suggesting a nominal amount. They also failed to seek injunctive relief. The court emphasized that even where a claim has merit, plaintiffs must prove their entitlement to relief in a summary trial, including demonstrating damages or remedies. Because this evidentiary burden was unmet, the court dismissed the action entirely.

Outcome and costs
CNRL succeeded in having the case dismissed. While the court acknowledged CNRL had technically committed trespass and caused flooding, the plaintiffs’ failure to substantiate their damages was fatal. The judge indicated a willingness to award costs to CNRL but left the door open for either party to file written submissions on that issue within 60 days of judgment.