Electrical Engineer

Green groups' suit over Suncor air pollution revived on appeal. Aug. 3, 2026, 9:59 AM PDT Stephen Lee Senior reporter A lawsuit against Suncor Energy over alleged air pollution from its Colorado refineries can move forward in spite of the company's existing settlements with the EPA and state regulators, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reverses a May 2025 lower court decision that granted Suncor's motion to have the suit tossed. In that decision, the US District Court for the District of Colorado ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency and Colorado regulators' consent decrees and compliance orders for Clean Air Act violations at Suncor's Commerce City refineries constituted... Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.

Swiss National Bank has $267.05 million stake in Suncor Energy Inc. $SU. July 19, 2026 Key points. * Swiss National Bank increased its stake in Suncor Energy by 26.2% in the first quarter, ending with 4.04 million shares valued at about $267.05 million. * Suncor Energy reported Q1 earnings of $1.41 per share, missing analyst expectations, but revenue came in above estimates at $10.41 billion. * The company paid a quarterly dividend of $0.60 per share, equal to a 3.8% annualized yield, while analysts currently rate the stock a consensus Buy with an average target price of $71.67. * MarketBeat previews the top five stocks to own by August 1st. Swiss National Bank raised its position in shares of Suncor Energy Inc. (NYSE:SU - Free Report) TSE: SU by 26.2% during the first quarter, according to its most recent disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The fund owned 4,043,492 shares of the oil and gas producer's stock after acquiring an additional 838,900 shares during the quarter. Swiss National Bank owned about 0.34% of Suncor Energy worth $267,051,000 as of its most recent SEC filing. Other large investors have also recently bought and sold shares of the company. AQR Capital Management LLC raised its position in shares of Suncor Energy by 14.2% in the 1st quarter. AQR Capital Management LLC now owns 25,015 shares of the oil and gas producer's stock worth $959,000 after acquiring an additional 3,115 shares in the last quarter. Geneos Wealth Management Inc. lifted its stake in shares of Suncor Energy by 172.5% in the 1st quarter. Geneos Wealth Management Inc. now owns 1,981 shares of the oil and gas producer's stock valued at $77,000 after purchasing an additional 1,254 shares during the period. EverSource Wealth Advisors LLC boosted its position in shares of Suncor Energy by 21.1% during the 2nd quarter. EverSource Wealth Advisors LLC now owns 2,667 shares of the oil and gas producer's stock valued at $100,000 after purchasing an additional 464 shares in the last quarter. AXA S.A. boosted its position in shares of Suncor Energy by 17.2% during the 2nd quarter. AXA S.A. now owns 50,278 shares of the oil and gas producer's stock valued at $1,883,000 after purchasing an additional 7,395 shares in the last quarter. Finally, NewEdge Advisors LLC grew its stake in Suncor Energy by 6.4% during the second quarter. NewEdge Advisors LLC now owns 67,142 shares of the oil and gas producer's stock worth $2,514,000 after purchasing an additional 4,043 shares during the period. 67.37% of the stock is currently owned by institutional investors and hedge funds. Suncor Energy stock performance. Shares of SU opened at $62.45 on Friday. Suncor Energy Inc. has a one year low of $37.76 and a one year high of $70.29. The company has a market cap of $73.73 billion, a PE ratio of 16.39 and a beta of 0.30. The stock has a 50-day moving average of $61.11 and a 200-day moving average of $58.68. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.20, a current ratio of 1.42 and a quick ratio of 0.92. Discover more Stock portfolio tracker Dividend stock screener MarketBeat investor relations Suncor Energy (NYSE:SU - Get Free Report) TSE: SU last posted its quarterly earnings results on Tuesday, May 5th. The oil and gas producer reported $1.41 earnings per share for the quarter, missing analysts' consensus estimates of $1.45 by ($0.04). The firm had revenue of $10.41 billion for the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $9.22 billion. Suncor Energy had a return on equity of 13.96% and a net margin of 12.29%.During the same period last year, the company posted $1.31 earnings per share. On average, equities research analysts predict that Suncor Energy Inc. will post 6.9 EPS for the current fiscal year. Suncor Energy announces dividend. The company also recently disclosed a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Thursday, June 25th. Stockholders of record on Thursday, June 4th were issued a dividend of $0.60 per share. The ex-dividend date was Thursday, June 4th. This represents a $2.40 annualized dividend and a dividend yield of 3.8%. Suncor Energy's payout ratio is currently 45.67%. Analyst upgrades and downgrades. A number of equities research analysts have weighed in on the company. Weiss Ratings downgraded Suncor Energy from a "buy (b)" rating to a "buy (b-)" rating in a report on Tuesday. Scotiabank upgraded Suncor Energy to a "strong-buy" rating in a report on Friday, June 26th. Desjardins raised shares of Suncor Energy to a "moderate buy" rating in a research report on Thursday. Royal Bank Of Canada lifted their price objective on shares of Suncor Energy from $75.00 to $89.00 and gave the company an "outperform" rating in a research note on Wednesday, April 1st. Finally, Zacks Research upgraded shares of Suncor Energy from a "hold" rating to a "strong-buy" rating in a research report on Monday, July 6th. Two research analysts have rated the stock with a Strong Buy rating, six have given a Buy rating and two have issued a Hold rating to the company's stock. According to MarketBeat.com, the company currently has an average rating of "Buy" and an average target price of $71.67. Suncor Energy profile. Suncor Energy Inc is a Canadian integrated energy company headquartered in Calgary, Alberta. The company's operations span the full oil and gas value chain, with principal activities in oil sands development and production, conventional exploration and production, refining, distribution and retail marketing of petroleum products. Suncor supplies crude, synthetic crude and refined fuels as well as related products and services to commercial and consumer markets. Upstream, Suncor is a major developer and operator of oil sands projects in Alberta, using both mining and in situ technologies to produce bitumen and synthetic crude. Want to see what other hedge funds are holding SU? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for Suncor Energy Inc. (NYSE:SU - Free Report) TSE: SU. This instant news alert was generated by narrative science technology and financial data from MarketBeat in order to provide readers with the fastest reporting and unbiased coverage. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected]. Before you consider Suncor Energy, you'll want to hear this. MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street's top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on... and Suncor Energy wasn't on the list. While Suncor Energy currently has a Buy rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys. With the proliferation of data centers and electric vehicles, the electric grid will only get more strained. Download this report to learn how energy stocks can play a role in your portfolio as the global demand for energy continues to grow.

Ongoing breaches of Confidentiality and conflict of Interest amount to just cause in Alberta. In Benham v Suncor Energy Inc, 2026 ABKB 364, the Alberta Court of King's Bench upheld Suncor's dismissal for just cause of a professional engineer with more than 40 years of service who was terminated approximately five months before his planned retirement. The Court found that the employee's repeated breaches of confidentiality obligations, failure to disclose and manage a conflict of interest, and continued misconduct after warnings irreparably damaged the employment relationship. Facts relevant to cause. Kelly Benham was a Senior Technical Advisor involved in Suncor's development of an "Integrated Thermal Process" (ITP) technology. Without authorization, he involved his son in the patent-development process and disclosed confidential information relating to the project. His son eventually became involved in a separate patent application connected to the technology. Suncor concluded that Benham: * Improperly disclosed confidential corporate information to his son; * Failed to disclose an ongoing conflict of interest; * Continued to advocate for his son's interests in relation to the technology; and * Ignored repeated directions from management and legal counsel to address the conflict and confidentiality concerns. The evidence showed that Suncor had previously reprimanded Benham and warned him regarding confidentiality and conflict-of-interest obligations, but the conduct continued. Court's approach to just cause. The Court applied the established contextual approach from cases such as McKinley v BC Tel, 2001 SCC 38, examining: * The nature and seriousness of the misconduct; * The employee's position and responsibilities; * Whether the misconduct undermined the employment relationship; and * Whether a lesser disciplinary response would have been sufficient. The Court emphasized that just cause is not determined by a single incident in isolation. Rather, the cumulative effect of the employee's actions must be considered in context. The Court framed the analysis in orthodox terms and stated that "the onus is on Suncor" to prove cause. The Court then applied a broad contextual approach, asking whether termination was a proportionate response to the proven misconduct. Why cause was found. The Court's reasoning turned on five factors: Benham's length of service and responsible role; Suncor's reasonable expectations given that role and its policies; prior feedback, warnings, and cautions; the potential impact on Suncor's business and confidential technology; and whether the conduct was isolated or continuous. Those factors mattered because the Court appears to have treated the case not as theft or patent misappropriation proved in the strictest sense, but as persistent policy non-compliance in a sensitive, trust-based role. Breach of Confidentiality The Court regarded confidentiality as fundamental to Benham's role as a senior engineer working on proprietary technology. Disclosure of confidential information to his son was not an inadvertent mistake but part of a broader pattern of conduct. The Court accepted that Suncor had legitimate concerns regarding protection of intellectual property and confidential business information. Conflict of Interest A central issue was Benham's failure to appropriately disclose and manage the conflict created by his son's involvement. The Court found that he continued participating in matters where his personal interests conflicted with Suncor's interests. As a senior employee, he had a heightened obligation to identify and avoid such conflicts. Repeated Misconduct After Warnings The Court placed significant weight on the fact that Benham had been warned. Suncor had identified the problems, reprimanded him, and provided opportunities to correct the situation. Despite this, the problematic conduct continued. This transformed what might otherwise have been viewed as a lapse in judgment into serious misconduct demonstrating an unwillingness to comply with core employment obligations. Breakdown of Trust The Court concluded that trust had been fundamentally damaged. Because the misconduct involved honesty, confidentiality, loyalty, and conflicts of interest, it struck at the heart of the employment relationship. The Court found that Suncor could no longer reasonably rely on Benham to fulfill his duties in a manner consistent with his fiduciary-like responsibilities as a senior technical employee. Effect of long service. One of the most notable aspects of the decision is that Benham had over 40 years of service and was nearing retirement. The Court acknowledged this factor but held that long service does not insulate an employee from dismissal for cause when the misconduct is sufficiently serious. In some circumstances, long service may mitigate misconduct; here, however, the Court found that Benham's seniority actually heightened the expectation that he would understand and comply with confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements. Key takeaways for Alberta Employment Law. The case stands for several important propositions: * Confidentiality breaches involving proprietary information can constitute cause, particularly for senior employees; * Undisclosed or unmanaged conflicts of interest are serious misconduct; * Repeated misconduct after warnings significantly strengthens a just-cause defence; * Long service is not a shield where the misconduct destroys trust; and * Courts will focus on whether the employer can reasonably continue the employment relationship, not merely whether a policy was technically breached. From a just cause perspective, the strongest aspect of Suncor's case was not any single act. It was the combination of (1) confidentiality breaches, (2) an ongoing conflict of interest, (3) repeated warnings, and (4) continued disregard of the employer's directions, which led the Court to conclude that the employment relationship had become untenable. For Calgary employers, Benham is a strong Alberta reminder that cause is most defensible where misconduct is documented, repeated, policy-based, and tied to trust-sensitive responsibilities. Confidentiality and conflict rules should be explicit, accessible, and reinforced in writing. Remedial directions should be concrete and managers should document warnings. The case also suggests that an employer does not need to prove the most dramatic theory if it can prove a sustained pattern of serious disloyal or conflicted conduct that makes continued employment untenable. For Calgary employees, Benham underscores that long service and a previously good record is relevant but not immunizing. Senior employees handling confidential technical or commercial information face especially demanding duties of disclosure, recusal from conflicts and prior approval. *Always seek legal advice. The above is for information purposes only. Stephen Dugandzic received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Alberta in 2013 and is Calgary-based. He previously practised with Bennett Jones LLP and Taylor Janis LLP before founding YYC Employment Law Group in 2018 and Evolution Legal in 2026. FAQs. Can an employee be dismissed for cause for a conflict of interest even if they did not personally profit? Yes. The Court confirmed that an actual financial benefit is not required. An employee may be terminated for just cause where they fail to disclose or properly manage a conflict of interest, particularly when the conflict compromises the employer's interests or undermines trust in the employment relationship. Why did the Court find that Benham's conduct justified dismissal for cause? The Court did not focus on a single incident. Instead, it considered the cumulative misconduct, including the disclosure of confidential information, failure to disclose and address conflicts of interest involving his son, and continued misconduct after repeated warnings. Together, these actions destroyed the trust necessary for the employment relationship. Does long service protect an employee from a finding of just cause? No. Although long service is an important contextual factor, it does not excuse serious misconduct. In Benham, the employee had over 40 years of service, but the Court found that his seniority actually increased the expectation that he would understand and comply with confidentiality and conflict-of-interest obligations. Are confidentiality breaches always grounds for dismissal for cause? Not necessarily. Courts apply a contextual analysis and assess the seriousness of the breach, the employee's role, the harm or potential harm to the employer, and whether trust has been undermined. In Benham, the confidentiality breaches involved proprietary technology and intellectual property, making the misconduct particularly serious. How important were the employer's warnings in establishing just cause? The warnings were highly significant. The Court emphasized that Suncor had repeatedly identified the concerns, reprimanded the employee, and provided opportunities to correct the conduct. The employee's failure to heed those warnings demonstrated an ongoing disregard for his obligations and supported the conclusion that the employment relationship had become irreparably damaged.