Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 69/12
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:
1Subsequent 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.
4In 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