Publications

FAQs About AMPs (Administrative Monetary Penalties) in the Canadian Offshore

Published:

June 10, 2016

Administrative monetary penalties, or “AMPs”, are a new phenomenon in the Canadian offshore. AMPs were introduced to the Newfoundland & Labrador and Nova Scotia offshore in February 2016 as part of the toughening-up of the offshore regulatory regime under the Energy Safety and Security Act amendments to each of the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act (the legislation implementing the Atlantic Accord and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord respectively). But AMPs have been used in both federal and provincial legislation for years: federally, they are used as an enforcement mechanism in many situations, including in the enforcement of agrifood, nuclear safety, and immigration legislation; provincially, they are used as an enforcement mechanism in health and safety (for example, in Nova Scotia and Alberta) and environmental protection (for example, in Alberta) legislation.

Here are five frequently asked questions about the new AMPs in the Canadian offshore to help offshore operators know what to expect.

What are AMPs? AMPs are monetary penalties that a regulator is authorized under the relevant legislation to impose on an infringer without the need for the regulator to prosecute the alleged infringer in a court. This authority appeals to regulators because they can avoid the cost and time of initiating prosecutions for infringements; but parties exposed to AMPS are sensitive to this lack of court oversight, however, and thus to the fair and impartial application of AMPS by the regulators. For the most part, AMPs are authorized in legislation that relates to regulated activities, and are typically imposed on individuals and businesses licensed to undertake those regulated activities.. Generally, AMPs are intended as a compliance-promoting, as opposed to a punitive, measure and the imposition of an AMP doesn’t create a criminal record. In keeping with this general approach, the use of AMPs in the Canadian offshore context is intended to promote compliance with the Accords, not to punish violators, and to strengthen safety and environmental protection of Canada’s offshore oil and gas sector. Thus, the application of the AMPs in this context focuses on regulatory requirements related to safety, protection of the environment and resource management.
For what sorts of violations can an AMP be issued in the Canadian offshore context and how are they issued? An AMP can be issued for a contravention of:
- A provision of the Part of the relevant Accord Act related to Petroleum Operations/Resources.
- A direction, requirement or Decision or Order made under that Part.
- A term or condition of an operating license or authorization that is issued, or of approval or exemption that is granted, under that Part.AMPs are issued in the form of a Notice of Violation (NOV) that includes: the name of the person believed to have committed the violation; the relevant facts surrounding the violation; the amount of the penalty, including identification of the mitigating and aggravating factors the issuer applied; and how to pay the penalty and how to request a review.
What are the potential penalties? The penalties that can be levied via an AMP vary greatly depending on the circumstances, but the maximum that can be imposed against an individual is $25,000 and against a corporation or any other person is $100,000. Regulators typically make the AMPs they impose publicly available on their websites. Since neither the Canada-Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) nor the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) have yet imposed any AMPs, they don’t have any listing on their respective websites; however, the National Energy Board (NEB) website offers an example of what we would expect the Boards to make available when they do impose AMPs.
Is an AMP final or can it be reviewed? An AMP isn’t final. If an AMP recipient wants to have it reviewed by the “next level”, the recipient must submit request a review to the applicable Offshore Petroleum Board within 30 days from the date it receives the AMP. The Boards are empowered to either refer this review to the Board itself to conduct the review, or to designate a person to conduct the review. It remains to be seen how this will work in practice, but either way, operators will want assurance that the ‘reviewer’ had no part in imposing the AMP in the first place. A further review to the Supreme Court of the applicable province is permitted. Interestingly, the legislation limits a further review in Newfoundland and Labrador to the “Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador” but limits a further review in Nova Scotia only to the “Supreme Court of Nova Scotia”, which could be interpreted as including both the trial and the appeal court.
What are the defences to an AMP? There aren’t many. In particular, certain of the “usual defences” aren’t available in relation to AMPs. For example, the familiar “due diligence” defence often available to regulatory offences isn’t a defence to an AMP under the Accord Acts. Similarly, the reasonable honest belief in the existence of facts that if proved would have exonerated a person against whom an AMP has been imposed also isn’t a valid legal defence to an AMP under the Accord Acts.

Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our McInnes Cooper Oil and Gas Team to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.

McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.

© McInnes Cooper, 2016. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Email us at [email protected] to request our consent.

Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

FAQs About AMPs (Administrative Monetary Penalties) in the Canadian Offshore

Published:

Share

Share

Related Services

Related Industries

Related Publications

Webinar | Growing Out Atlantic Canada’s Aquaculture Industry

Hiring a Foreign Company to Provide Services in Canada? 3 Immigration Issues

Dutch Court Orders Corporation to Reduce Emissions in Landmark Decision

The N.S. Shared Solar Energy Program: 3 Key Facts

The Indigenous Right to a Moderate Livelihood: A Need for Clarity

Final Fisheries Regulation Amendments: 3 Key Issues Addressed

Coping with COVID-19: The Impact on Contractual Performance in the Energy and Natural Resources Sector

N.S. Battens Down Marine Renewable Energy Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)

Proposed Fisheries Regulation Amendments Target Fish Processors & Buyers

5 Key Requirements of Canada’s Federal Environmental Emergency Regulations

A Whale of a Change: 5 of the Key Changes DFO Proposes to Canada’s Fisheries Act

Atlantic Canada Seafood Processing Mergers & Acquisitions: 3 Due Diligence Tips

Dan Watt in Energy Regulation Quarterly | The Impact Assessment Act, Canadian Energy Regulator Act and Offshore Energy: A View from Atlantic Canada

The Evolving Duty to Consult Indigenous Peoples: N.S. Court Recognizes a “Duty of Enforcement Consultation” in R. v. Martin

The Feds Finally Take the Plunge: Bill C-69 & The New Federal Offshore Renewable Energy Regime

Bill C-69 & the New Federal Impact Assessment Act: The Impact on the Role of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (CNLOPB)

Navigating the N.S. Marine Renewable Energy Regime: What Project Developers Need to Know

Williams Lake Indian Band v. Canada: Crown Breached Fiduciary Duty to Indigenous Community – in 1858

Balance Between Public & Operator Interests in Offshore Petroleum Resources Data is Set: Supreme Court of Canada Won’t Hear Appeal in Geophysical Service Incorporated (GSI) v. Encana Corporation

It’s Official: “Facilitation Payments” to Foreign Public Officials Violates Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA)

New Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Oil Royalty Regulations Effective November 1, 2017: Key Changes to the Offshore Regime

Supreme Court of Canada Tackles Freedom of Religion & the Duty to Consult in Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations)

Canada Has Other Fish to Fry Between NAFTA Negotiation Rounds: CETA Provisionally Effective September 21, 2017

New N.S. Demonstration Permit for Marine Renewable Energy in the Wind (and the Waves) With Proposed Marine Renewable Energy Act Amendments

Charting a Course for Good Governance of Canada’s Emerging Ocean Economy | Offshore Aquaculture and Ocean-based Renewable Energy

Cross-Border Caution: 5 Anti-Corruption Law Compliance Program Tips

Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo Services Inc. and Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines Inc.: Crown Can Rely on National Energy Board to Fulfill its Duty to Consult

Making Waves: What CETA means for Atlantic Canadian Fisheries

Canada v. Mikisew Cree First Nation: Court to Decide Whether Duty to Consult Also Applies Before Legislation is Enacted

Northern Exposure: Anti-Corruption Law Exposes Payments to Governments Under Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act (ESTMA)

Appeal Court maintains balance between public & operator interests in offshore petroleum resources data in Geophysical Service Incorporated (GSI) v. Encana Corporation

Cannabis Legalization in Canada: Seeds have sprouted, but the branches are still bare

Nip it in the Bud: A 5 Step Plan for Employers to Prepare for Cannabis Legalization in Canada

Daniel Watt and Sara Mahaney in Gard Update: Legal privilege in the corporate context in Canada

Register Before You Lobby in N.B. under Lobbyists’ Registration Act

McInnes Cooper in the Maritimes Energy Association’s Member News | Go Deep: How International Legal Reform Can Prevent Legal Uncertainty from Hindering Offshore Wind & Aquaculture Growth

Go Deep: How International Legal Reform Can Prevent Legal Uncertainty from Hindering Offshore Wind & Aquaculture Growth

Available now: Offshore Oil and Gas Decommissioning Best Practices

Confidentiality Risks of Doing Business With the Public Sector Just Got Riskier: Completed NS Access to Information Requests Go Online

The Atlantic Link: 5 Key Questions About the Electrifying Opportunity to Connect to a New Renewable Energy Market

The Top Three Atlantic Canada Offshore Legal Developments of 2016

Newfoundland & Labrador’s New Public Procurement Act

Time to Shine: Nova Scotia to Launch Solar Energy Pilot Program in 2017

Keeping It Flowing: 10 Steps to Anticipate Citizens’ Challenges to New Developments

Newfoundland & Labrador: A New Public Procurement Act for 2017

Public & operator interests in offshore petroleum resources data: Where will the balance be struck? in Geophysical Service Incorporated (GSI) v. Encana Corporation

Supreme Court of Canada Decides Indian Bands Assessing Leased Reserve Lands for Property Tax Purposes Can’t Have it Both Ways in Musqueam Indian Band v. Musqueam Indian Band (Board of Review)

DFO Decides “Last In, First Out” Policy (LIFO) is Out

Municipal Liability for ByLaw Enforcement: A Bylaw’s Not a Bylaw in Vlanich v. Typhair

Weigh Now or Weight Later: New Cargo Container Verified Gross Mass (VGM) Rules Effective July 1, 2016

The Parameters of Municipal Power: Supreme Court of Canada Decides Municipality Can’t Block Radiocommunication Tower Construction in Rogers Communications Inc. v. Châteauguay (City)

Supreme Court of Canada Decides Income Tax Act Sections are Unconstitutional – and Strengthens Solicitor-Client Privilege in Canada (Attorney General) v. Chambre des notaires du Québec & Canada (National Revenue) v. Thompson

Assertion of Aboriginal Right Does Not Automatically Confer Eligibility to Appeal a Regulatory Approval in O’Chiese First Nation v. Alberta Energy Regulator

The East Coast Duty to Consult Indigenous Peoples

Newfoundland & Labrador Crown Immunity for Mechanics’ Lien Holdbacks: 3 Key Risks for Subcontractors in Brook Construction (2007) v. Blackwood Contractors Ltd.

The Legal Defence of Due Diligence: Top 5 FAQs

The New Nova Scotia Mineral Resources Act: The Good, The Risky & The Neutral

Supreme Court of Canada Decides Federal Government Has Legislative Authority Over Métis & Non-Status Indians

Doing Business With the Public Sector: Key Confidentiality Risks & 3 Risk Management Strategies

Construction Project Manager Sentenced to 3½ Years for Workplace Accident in R. v. Vadim Kazenelson (aka “Metron”)

Energy Safety and Security Act (ESSA) Effective February 26, 2016: 7 Key Changes Toughen Up Atlantic Offshore and North Oil & Gas Regulatory Regime

NB Kicks-off First Request for Expressions of Interest from Aboriginal Businesses Under New Electricity from Renewable Resources Regulation

Offshore Oil and Gas Decommissioning Best Practices

University of Calgary, The School of Public Policy Research Paper – Canada, The Law of the Sea Treaty and International Payments: Where Will the Money Come From?

A Glimpse Into The Future of Privacy Law: Medical Marijuana Privacy Breach Class Action Lawsuit Can Go Ahead in John Doe and Suzie Jones v. Her Majesty the Queen

The Changing Face of Aboriginal Law: 1 Short Year, 2 Big Court Decisions, 3 Key Implications for the Energy & Natural Resources Sector

Unproven Aboriginal Rights Enough For Lawsuit Against Private Industry in Saik’uz First Nation and Stellat’en First Nation v. Rio Tinto Alcan Inc.

3 Reasons for Directors, Officers and Supervisors To Take Occupational Health and Safety Personally