Skip To Content
Maureen  Killoran Q.C.

Maureen Killoran Q.C.

Calgary Managing Partner

Key Contact: Litigation

Key Contact: Product Liability


Contact Information

mkilloran@osler.com

tel: 403.260.7003

Office

Calgary

Bar Admission

Alberta, 1995

Ontario, 2001

British Columbia, 2015

Education
  • University of Calgary, LL.B.
  • Queen’s University, B.A. (Hons.)
Language(s)
English

Maureen is the Managing Partner of Osler’s Calgary office and a trusted advisor to many major commercial clients. Despite her management role, Maureen maintains 100% of her litigation practice which is devoted to complex commercial disputes with particular emphasis on the resource industry. She is a seasoned trial and appeal lawyer with experience in commercial arbitrations (domestic and international) and other forms of dispute resolution. Maureen represents a diverse group of clients and has extensive experience in resource industry disputes, both in Canada and abroad, acting on major hydroelectric, oil sands, midstream, upstream and downstream disputes including: CAODC, CAPL and AIPN contract matters; gas supply contracts; oil and gas facilities and processing contracts; operator disputes; royalty disputes; Rights of First Refusal (ROFR); accounting disputes; fiduciary duties; product liability; and, environmental claims. A significant portion of Maureen’s practice includes judicial review, regulatory appeals, and the defence of environmental and aboriginal claims in both Federal and Provincial Courts across the country.

  • Chambers Global: The World’s Leading Business Lawyers 2015: Dispute Resolution (Alberta)
  • Named Queen’s Counsel, Province of Alberta 2013
  • The Best Lawyers in Canada 2011-2015:  Corporate and Commercial Litigation
  • Benchmark Litigation Canada 2012-2015: National Litigation Star and Local Litigation Star: Commercial; Energy and Natural Resources; White Collar Crime; Aboriginal Litigation
  • Awarded Women in Law Leadership Award (2011)
  • Canadian Who’s Who 2011-2015
  • Rated as “BV Distinguished” by Martindale Hubbell Directory, Peer Review Rating 2003-2012

  • Law Societies of Alberta, Upper Canada and British Columbia
  • Canadian Energy Law Foundation
  • Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation

  • Acting for Shell Canada Limited, in the defence of challenges to Shell’s proposed Jackpine Mine expansion at the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of Canada. Reported Decisions: Métis Nation of Alberta Region 1 v. Joint Review Panel, 2012 ABCA 352 (leave to appeal to SCC, denied); and Adam v. Canada (Environment), 2014 FC 1185;

  • Defending CNRL in Devon, Bard et al., v. CNRL, a commercial dispute  in relation to interests and obligations associated with the multi-billion dollar Horizon Oil Sands operation;

  • Acting for major international resource company in a confidential contractual dispute arbitrated through the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”);

  • Ernst v. EnCana et al: Defending EnCana in a $11 million claim for damages by a landowner for alleged damages sustained due to “fracking” in oil and gas operations;

  • Acting for Kinder Morgan Canada Inc., in the successful defence of multiple challenges to the proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion (the “Project”) at the National Energy Board, the Federal Court of Canada (“FCC”), the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”), and the British Columbia Supreme Court (“BCSC”), including:

    • Coldwater Indian Band and Chief Harold Aljam et al v. Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. et al: the successful defence of a judicial review application and appeal at the FCC and FCA regarding a pipeline expropriation dispute. Kinder Morgan was also entirely successful in its cross-appeal at the FCA. Reported DecisionsColdwater First Nation v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2013 FC 1138; Coldwater Indian Band v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), 2014 FCA 277.

    • Coldwater Indian Band and Chief Lee Spahan et al v. Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. et al: defending against a judicial review of a decision of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development relating to the pipeline right of way through reserve land.

    • The City of Burnaby v. Trans Mountain: part of successful defence team in injunction motion brought by the City of Burnaby to stop Trans Mountain from accessing City lands for the purposes of conducting NEB mandated tests and surveys integral to the assessment of the Project. Reported Decision: Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC v. Gold, 2014 BCSC 2133.

    • National Energy Board Ruling No. 40 and Order Mo-122-2014 (October 23, 2014) – successfully brought a Notice of Constitutional Question dated September 26, 2014, and argued that the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy rendered certain Burnaby City Bylaws inoperable where they are inconsistent with the Rulings of the NEB.  The resulting Order granted Trans Mountain access to Burnaby Mountain to complete technical studies related to the Project and prevented Burnaby from blocking Trans Mountain from completing the work. Leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed.

  • Leave to Appeal Motions Successfully Defended and Dismissed by Federal Court of Appeal:

    • City of Vancouver v. NEB and Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC;
    • L.D. Harvey v. NEB and Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC;
    • City of Burnaby v. NEB and Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC; and
    • Lynne M. Quarmby, Eric Doherty, Ruth Walmsley et al v. NEB, Attorney General of Canada, Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC et al
  • Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. NEB, Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC and Attorney General, defending an appeal of a National Energy Board decision before the FCA, based on alleged breaches of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Crown’s constitutional duty to consult.

  • Dr. Gary Smith, Andrée Stow et al v. Attorney General of Canada and Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, motion for judicial reviewing a decision of the NEB

  • Acting for Nalcor Energy in the successful defence of multiple challenges to the proposed Muskrat Falls and Churchill Falls hydro-electric Project (the “Project”) and the Labrador-Island Transmission Link in Newfoundland and Labrador, at the at the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland & Labrador, the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Supreme Court of Canada, including:

  • Sierra Club, Grand River Keeper et al v. Nalcor Energy, Government of Canada et al.,: the dismissal of the judicial review of the Report of the Joint Review Panel in relation to the environmental assessment of the Project. Reported Decision: Grand Riverkeeper, Labrador Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 1520.

  • Conseil des Innus de Ekuanitshit v. Nalcor Energy, Government of Canada et al: the successful defence at the FCC, FCA and SCC of the: (i) judicial review of the Federal Government Response to the Report of the Joint Review Panel and ultimate approval of the Project; and (ii) claim that the Crown had failed to consult/accommodate in relation to the Project. Reported Decisions: Conseil des innus de Ekuanitshit c. Canada (Procureur general), 2013 FC 418; Council of the Innu of Ekuanitshit v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FCA 189; Conseil des Innus de Ekuanitshit v. Attorney General of Canada, in his capacity of legal member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, et al., 2015 CanLII 10578.

  • Nunatsiavut Government v. Her Majesty in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador: Representing Nalcor Energy before the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Federal Court of Canada in the: (i) judicial review of both provincial and federal permits in relation to the Project; and, (ii) claim that the Crowns failed to fulfil their duties to consult and accommodate. Reported Decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador: Nunatsiavut v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Department of Environment and Conservation), 2015 NLTD(G) 1.

  • Nunatsiavut Government v. Attorney General of Canada: the judicial review of a federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans authorization in relation to the Project and the claim that the Crown failed to fulfil its duty to consult. Reported Decision: Nunatsiavut v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 492.

  • NunatuKavut Community Council Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada: the judicial review of a federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans authorization in relation to the Project and the claim that the Crown failed to fulfil its duty to consultFCC Decision Pending.

  • Nalcor Energy v. NunatuKavut Community Council et al: represented Nalcor Energy before the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador in its injunction motion to enjoin protestors from their illegal blockade of a work site and interference with Nalcor’s lawfully permitted work in relation to its Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project. Reported Decision: Nalcor Energy v. NunatuKavut Community Council Inc., 2012 NLTD(G) 175 and NunatuKavut Community Council Inc. v. Nalcor Energy, 2014 NLCA 46.

  • NunatuKavut Community Council Inc. et al v. Nalcor Energy et al: successful defence of an injunction motion brought by the Nuntukavut Community Council to enjoin a regulatory process. Reported Decision: Nunatukavut Community Council Inc. v. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation (Nalcor Energy), 2011 NLTD (G) 44.

  • Crew Energy v. Cenovus: defending Cenovus in a commercial dispute pertaining to a farmout agreement and the expiry of oil and gas Leases. Reported Decision: Crew Energy v. Cenovus Energy Inc., 2012 ABQB 462;

  • Acted for BG International in a LCIA dispute with Canadian Superior Energy Corp. in relation to an AIPN joint operating agreement pertaining to gas exploration and development in Trinidad and Tobago. The dispute involved multiple applications for Interim Relief including receivership and CCAA protection at the Court of Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal of Alberta: (2009) 448 A.R. 24 (QB); 457 A.R. 38 (C.A.).

Lecturer/Instructor

  • Advocates Society: Bench and Bar Series – Chair, Evidence that Wins, Calgary Spring 2015
  • University of Notre Dame, Faculty of Law, South Bend, Indiana: Visiting Faculty Instructor, Intensive Trial Advocacy Training Program (2009, 2010, 2012);
  • University of Calgary, Faculty of Law, lecturer: civil procedure; advocacy; professional negligence; and, remedies; Instructor at the Intensive Trial Advocacy Course (2006-2011);
  • Legal Education Society of Alberta Intensive Trial Advocacy Course for Practitioners, Instructor 2007-2012; LESA Civil Litigation Course, 2010, Panel Chair, 2010; and Alberta Rules of Court Course, Conference Speaker, 2010.

Recent Conferences and Papers