The Plaintiff applied for Replevin pursuant to Rule 6.49. The Plaintiff claimed that it owned a specialized compressor that was taken by the Defendant and sold to a third party. The Defendant contended that it had statutory authority to possess and sell the compressor.

The Court held that a party applying for a Replevin Order for return of property must establish: (1) the wrongful taking or detention of the property; (2) the value and description of the property; and (3) its ownership of the property. Justice Hollins also noted that because the Replevin Order sought was an interim Order, it did not require a full adjudication of the issues but rather just that the Applicant had established substantial grounds for bringing the Application under Rule 6.49.

The Court, however, found that the governing legislation, specifically section 102(1) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, required actual knowledge of ownership in order for the Defendant to be restricted from selling the equipment. Since the Defendant did not have actual knowledge that the Plaintiff owned the compressor, it was authorized to sell it. The Court emphasized that imposing a duty to inquire would hinder the Defendant's ability to fulfill its statutory obligations effectively. The Court also noted that the Plaintiff could have taken steps to assert its ownership. Consequently, Hollins J. dismissed the Plaintiff’s Application for Replevin.