Questerre reports on Quebec Court of Appeal ruling on Bill 21

THIS NEWS RELEASE IS NOT FOR DISSEMINATION OR DISTRIBUTION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO UNITED STATES NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR UNITED STATES PERSONS

CALGARY, Alberta, May 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Questerre Energy Corporation (“Questerre” or the “Company”) (TSX,OSE:QEC) reported on the recent ruling by the Court of Appeal of Quebec related to Bill 21, An Act ending exploration for petroleum and underground reservoirs and production of petroleum and brine (“Bill 21”). A copy of the ruling in French is available online: https://courdappelduquebec.ca/fileadmin/jugements/200-09-010731-245_Arret_2025-05-22.pdf.

Michael Binnion, President and Chief Executive Officer of Questerre, commented, “In its ruling, the Court of Appeal recognized the existence of a serious issue with respect to the constitutionality of Bill 21 and reinstated certain provisions of Bill 21. We will request leave to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the interim, we will ask the Court of Appeal to suspend this ruling until such time. This means that subject to our appeal, the Government of Quebec could move to enforce the specific provisions related to the abandonment and reclamation of existing wells."

He added, "This ruling by the Court of Appeal has no impact on the main trial on the merits of the case. We are following the legal process for this case and have a hearing this week on the Government representatives to be questioned prior to setting a trial date.”

The ruling by the Court of Appeal relates to the appeal by the Attorney General of Quebec of a judgement rendered in January 2024 by the Quebec Superior Court suspending key provisions of Bill 21. A copy of the original ruling is available online: https://www.questerre.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-01-25-Decision-English.pdf. The appeal concerns the analysis of the criteria applicable to the suspension of a law. The Court of Appeal dismissed the joint motion by the Company and other license holders for the review and annulment of the judgement granting the appeal and allowed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal noted in its decision that the Justice did not err in law or exercise his discretion in an unjudicial or unreasonable manner in concluding there was a serious question to be decided. The Court of Appeal noted that the Justice erred in law on the balance of convenience test and did not presume that the suspension of Bill 21 would cause irreparable harm to the public interest. The ruling noted that in view of the importance of the public interest and the failure to demonstrate the benefits to the public of suspending key provisions of Bill 21 it allowed the appeal and overturned the Justice’s original decision.