Calgary, Originating Application for Judicial Review returnable on September 26, 2012, respective clients. application

Transcription

1 I. John, Lawyer* Richard professional corporation) (* July 19, 2012 Justice Litigation Civil Floor Peace Hills Trust Tower 9th 109 Street Environmental Appeals Board Peace Hills Trust Tower Street Edmonton, Justice Law Section Environmental Floor, Oxbridge Place 8th 106 Street to By Courier by LLP Ackroyd First Edmonton Place 1500 Jasper Avenue T5J 3S9 Edmonton, 7A Street N.E. 205 Calgary, Canada, T2E 4E7 (403) Tel: (403) Fax: My file: Handel Transport (Norrn) Ltd. and Gas Plus Inc. v. Her Majesty Queen in Re: of et al. Action No Right to above captioned matter, please find enclosed herewith a filed copy of my Furr Originating Application for Judicial Review returnable on September 26, 2012, clients' with a filed Notice to Obtain Record of Proceedings (Form 8) for service upon along respective clients. your that am in process of filing an Affidavit in support of my clients' confirm and will provide you with a filed copy of Affidavit in due course. application RIJ/ca Encls. Copy to: Gas Plus Inc. and Handel Transport (Norrn) Ltd. by cindy@brid,qeland-law.com to: By to erika.gerlock@gov.ab.ca By to james.mallet@gov.ab.ca Edmonton, T5J 3S8 Edmonton, T5K 2J6 Attention: Erika Gerlock Attention: James Mallet By to gilbert.vannes@gov.ab.ca RSecord@ackroydlaw.com; Original T5J 3S8 Attention: Gilbert Van Nes Secord Attention: Richard C. Dear Sirs/Madame: Yours truly, RIJohn" Richard I. John

2 THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA, AS REPRESENTED MAJESTY THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND WATER BY FOR SERVICE and Richard I. John, Barrister & Solicitor ADDRESS INFORMATION of 205 7A Street NE CONTACT Calgary,, T2E 4E7 (403) Fax#: (403) Tel#: No t File application is made against you. You are a respondent. This have right to state your side of this matter before Court before master/judge. You Date: Time: Where: Before: 26th day of September, 2012 Wednesday, A.M. 10:00 Floor, North Tower, Street S.W., Calgary, 9th Chambers Justice COURT FILE NUMBER: COURT: COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA Clerk's Stamp JUDICIAL CENTRE: CALGARY HANDEL TRANSPORT (NORTHERN) LTD. and GAS PLUS INC. APPLICANT(S): RIGHT OF ALBERTA and HER RESPONDENT(S): HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in ORIGINATING APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PARTY FILING THIS NOTICE TO RESPONDENT(S) To do so, you must be in Court when application is heard as shown below: Go to end of this document to see what you can do and when you must do it. BASIS FOR THIS CLAIM:

3 Original Environmental Protection Order: December 3, 2010, Respondent, Her Majesty Queen in Right of, as On by Minister of Environment ( " Environment and Water") Represented an Environmental Protection Order No. EPO-2010/58-SR ( "EPO") affecting issued municipally described as 6336 Bowness Road NW, Calgary ( "Site"). The lands Ltd. ("HTNL") and Gas Plus Inc. ("GPI"), were directed to advise Darren (Norrn) Director for Respondent, in writing of selection of one of following Bourget, options for a Option "A" Source Removal Program for Site as specified previously in ao 17 to 22 of Amended EPO which required excavation of ti e Clauses which required installation of a Applicants, HTNL and GPI, elected Option "B" which required that y insta!l a The Wall pursuant to paragraph 27 of Amended EPO. Secant to hearing of appeal to Environmental Appeal Board ( "EAB"), a Prior of Applicants, HTNL and GPI, met with Darren Bourget, Director for principal Environment and Water. Mr. Bourget verbally advised principal Respondent, Applicants that notwithstanding outcome of appeal, Environment for Water would not withdraw option for Applicants to build a Secant Wall on-site and remediate contaminated soil on-site. It was partially on this basis that and hearing was held from November 22, 2011 through to November 25, appeal hearing Respondent, Environment and Water, without prior At withdrew Option "B" which allowed Applicants to build a Secant Wall and notice, -2- Respondent subsequently issued three amendments to EPO ( "Amended EPO"). In accordance with last amendment to EPO, Applicants, Handel Transport remediation program for Site: or contaminated soil; Option "B" Source Containment and On-Site Remedial Program ("Option "B"") containment wall ( "Secant Wall") on-site and remediation on-site of contaminated soil. Applicants, HTNL and GPI, elected to proceed to appeal Amended EPO. The appeal The Appeal of Environmental Protection Order and Amendments reto:

4 decision by Environment and Water This based on ostensible advice and recommendation of CH2M Hill, a consultant to was written reports which had been provided by CH2M Hill were supportive of previous a Secant Wall and remediating contaminated soil on-site. Moreover, re building had told Respondent, Environment and Water, that building a which will be transcribed at a On January 25, 2012, Respondent issued a Ministerial Order ( "Ministerial Order") 6. was filed on January 30, 2012 in Judicial Centre of Edmonton, in Action which Applicants say that Respondent breached principles of natural justice, The its duty to be fair and erred in law as follows: breached reasonableness of Option "B" and affects Applicants and should informs been taken into consideration by EAB; have By raising a new issue without notice to parties. More specifically, by bo Option "B" without providing any prior notice to Applicants; withdrawing By failing to allow Applicants an opportunity to provide evidence in respect of Co detailed logistics of work which is required to be completed pursuant to -3- remediate on-site contaminated. Environment and Water, that it was not prudent to allow for contaminated soil to be treated on-site. Richard I. John, counsel for Applicants, clearly indicated during appeal that was no written evidence and questionable verbal evidence before EAB that CH2M Hill Secant Wall and treating on-site was not an acceptable intervention. The transcript of appeal hearing, later date, will substantiate Applicants position and will be relied on in support of this Originating Application for Judicial Review. The Ministerial Order and Request for Reconsideration: No The Ministerial Order reflected removal of Option "B". Breach of Natural Justice, Breach of Duty to be Fair, and Error of Law: ao By failing to disclose historical reports obtained in respect of Site. These are referred to in Amended EPO and indicate presence of pre- reports contamination found in soil on Site. This information directly existing Amended EPO and consequences of excavating contaminated soil;

5 By relying on report of a Third Party consultant, Dr. Sevigay, who had no first knowledge of obstacles related to excavating Site nor of historical hand current condition of Site. or Applicants, through ir solicitor Richard I. John, made a formal request for The to EAB on March 20, 2012 pursuant to section 101 of reconsideration Protection and Enhancement Act () on basis that y were Environmental to comply with time-lines set in Ministerial Order. The EAB denied unable for reconsideration. The Applicants say that if detailed logistics of request was put before EAB it would have been a significant factor in determining excavation efficacy of excavation and EAB would not have directed time-lines which cannot be met in circumstances. physically level of contamination both on and off Site are consistent with evidence of that Environmental Consultants, a consultant to Applicants, which was put before Tiamat 11. An Order in nature of Certiorari reinstating Option "B" and or in alternative, an -4- In this regard, testing subsequent to issuance of Ministerial Order have confirmed EAB, and re was an insufficient basis for EAB to have concluded that it was to excavate soil which is located on Site. necessary Abuse of Discretion: In alternative, Applicants says that Respondent exercised an abuse of 10. in particular, by: discretion, a. acting on irrelevant considerations; b. acting on inadequate material; and co reaching an patently unreasonable and improper result. REMEDY SOUGHT: Order in nature of Mandamus requiring EAB to reinstate Option "B". 12. Costs of this application on a solicitor and his own client basis.

6 Such furr relief as nature of this case may require and this Honourable Court may 13. direct. 14. All relevant records, or portions reof to be transcribed at a later date, which were WARNING: are named as a respondent because you have made or are expected to make an You makes, or anor order might be given or or proceedings taken which Court is/are entitled to make without any furr notice to you. If you want to take part applicant(s) application, you or your lawyer must attend in Court on date and time shown in beginning of this form. If you intend to rely on an affidavit or or evidence when at AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER EVIDENCE TO BE USED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION: referred to at appeal hearing; 15. Affidavit(s) of Applicants to be filed in accordance with Rule 3.15(5) of Rules of Court (); 16. The Record of Proceedings (relevant portion only) to be produced in accordance with Form 8, filed concurrent with this Originating Application for Judicial Review. 17. All or materials as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit. APPLICABLE ACTS AND REGULATIONS: 18. Subdivision 2, including 3.15, 3.18 of Rules of Court () and 6.3 of Rules of Court (). 19, The Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c.e-12, claim in respect of this origination application. If you do not come to Court eir in adverse or by your lawyer, Court may make an order declaring you and all persons person under you to be barred from taking any furr proceedings against applicant(s) claiming against all persons claiming under applicant(s). You will be bound by any order and originating application is heard or considered, you must reply by giving reasonable notice of that material to applicant(s).

7 f OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBER COURT 8 FORM 3.18] [Rule THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA, AS REPRESENTED MAJESTY THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT AND WATER BY FOR SERVICE and Richard I. John, Barrister & Solicitor ADDRESS INFORMATION of 205 7A Street NE CONTACT FILING THIS PARTY, T2E 4E7 Calga, (403) Fax#: (403) Tel#: Requirement are required to provide following or an explanation as to why y, or any of m, cannot be provided: You decision or written record of act that is subject of originating application for judicial review; your possession relevant to decision or act. COURT FILE NUMBER: COURT: CALGARY JUDICIAL CENTRE: HANDEL TRANSPORT (NORTHERN) LTD. and GAS PLUS INC. APPLICANT(S): RIGHT OF ALBERTA and HER RESPONDENT(S): HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN NOTICE TO OBTAIN RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS File No NOTICE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD b. reasons given for decision or act, if any; document starting proceeding; evidence and exhibits filed with you, if any, and; anything else in