Court File and Parties

CITATION: Goldcorp Canada Ltd. v. Ontario Energy Board, 2012 ONSC 3717

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 69/12

DATE: 20120629

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Goldcorp Canada Ltd. and Goldcorp Inc. (Goldcorp), Appellant

- AND -

Ontario Energy Board, Respondent

BEFORE: Swinton, Sachs and Wilton-Siegel JJ.

COUNSEL: Ian Blue, Q.C. and Colin Pendrith, for the Appellant M. Philip Tunley and Justin Safayeni, for the Respondent Robert Warren and Catherine Powell, for the Intervenor Consumers Council of Canada Mark Rubenstein, for the Intervenor Ontario Education Services Corporation

HEARD at Toronto: May 24, 2012

Addendum to Endorsement After Release

The Court:

[1] Subsequent to the release of the Court’s initial Endorsement (Citation 2012 ONSC 3097 dated June 5, 2012), counsel pointed out factual errors in paragraph 4 of the Endorsement. Therefore, paragraph 4 is replaced in order to correct these factual errors. The underlining indicates changes.

[4] In these circumstances, s.6.7.6 of the Code also requires a transmitter to obtain “bypass compensation” from Goldcorp on the basis that a portion of the exiting transmission connection facilities of Hydro One are stranded, ie., Hydro One will no longer receive the expected revenue in respect of these existing facilities. Section 6.7.7 of the Code sets out how Hydro One is to calculate the bypass compensation. The purpose of the bypass compensation is to compensate Hydro One’s customers for the investment they have effectively made in the stranded facilities, which will no longer be generating the expected revenue. The payment of bypass compensation was also understood to be addressed in the CCRA to be negotiated.

Swinton J.

Sachs J.

Wilton-Siegel J.

Date: June 29, 2012