Environmental Appeal Board

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Environmental Appeal Board"

Transcription

1 Environmental Appeal Board Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia V8W 3E9 Telephone: (250) Facsimile: (250) Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 Website: DECISION NO WAT-015(a) In the matter of an appeal under section 92 of the Water Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c BETWEEN: Greengen Holdings Inc. APPELLANT AND: Regional Water Manager RESPONDENT AND: BEFORE: Chief Ian Campbell in his own right and on behalf of the Squamish First Nation A Panel of the Environmental Appeal Board Robert Wickett, Q.C., Vice Chair PARTICIPANT DATE: APPEARING: Conducted by way of written submissions concluding on October 15, 2015 For the Appellant: For the Respondent: For the Participant: Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., and Arden Beddoes, Counsel Erin Christie and Anna Peacock, Counsel Aaron Bruce, Counsel PRELIMINARY APPLICATION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL [1] On September 17, 2009, Greengen Holdings Inc. ( Greengen ), formerly known as Second Reality Effects Inc., appealed a decision denying its application for a water licence on Fries Creek for power purposes. The water licence application was denied on August 18, 2009, by Julia Berardinucci, Regional Water Manager (the Manager ), Ministry of Environment (now the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations) (the Ministry ). [2] At Greengen s request, the appeal was held in abeyance for several years to allow the parties time to attempt to resolve the matter. The matter was not resolved, and in September 2014, Greengen requested that the appeal be set down for a hearing. The hearing is scheduled to commence in January [3] On September 24, 2015, the Manager raised a preliminary issue regarding the Board s jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought by Greengen; namely, to approve the issuance of water licence to Greengen. The Manager submitted that Greengen does not meet the eligibility requirements in the Water Act for holding a water licence, and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

2 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 2 [4] Before deciding this preliminary issue, the Board offered Greengen and the participant, the Squamish First Nation ( SFN ), an opportunity to make written submissions. Both of them provided submissions. [5] This preliminary decision addresses the issue of whether the appeal should be dismissed on the basis that the Board has no jurisdiction under the Water Act to grant the remedy sought by Greengen. BACKGROUND [6] Fries Creek is a tributary to the Squamish River, located in southwestern BC. Brackendale Eagles Provincial Park is located to the north of Fries Creek. Fries Creek is within the traditional territory of the SFN, and flows through the Fries Creek Cultural Site before it joins the Squamish River. [7] On or about February 21, 2005, Second Reality Effects Inc. applied for a water licence on Fries Creek for power purposes, pursuant to the Water Act. On that same date, it also applied for a Crown land tenure under the Land Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c Both applications were submitted in furtherance of a proposed hydro power project on Fries Creek. The proposed point of diversion for the hydro project is over 3 km upstream of the Fries Creek Cultural Site. [8] After submitting those applications, Second Reality Effects Inc. changed its name to Greengen. [9] In March 2006, Greengen s applications for the water licence and the Crown land tenure were sent to the SFN for comments. [10] In August 2006, Greengen received an electricity purchase agreement, whereby it can sell electricity generated by the proposed hydro project to BC Hydro. [11] In April 2007, a development plan for the proposed hydro project was referred to the SFN. [12] According to Greengen, in an April 17, 2007 letter (the Board does not have a copy of this letter), the SFN advised that it did not support Greengen s water licence application or the proposed hydro power project for various reasons, including because the Fries Creek Cultural Site was designated as a protected area in a Land Use Agreement between the SFN and the Province of BC. Although a copy of that Agreement has not been provided to the Board, many of the submissions and documents before the Board (including the decision under appeal) refer to this agreement as the Agreement on Land Use Planning between the Squamish Nation and the Province of British Columbia, dated July 26, 2007 (the Land Use Agreement ). [13] According to Greengen, the Province of BC and the SFN then spent over two years attempting to find a way to accommodate the SFN s concerns. During that process, Greengen agreed to adjust its plans to accommodate concerns about the access route to the proposed hydro power project. [14] On August 17, 2009, a statutory decision-maker under the Land Act denied Greengen s application for Crown land tenure. There is no statutory appeal process for decisions under the Land Act. Greengen could have applied for a judicial review

3 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 3 of that decision, but it did not. Greengen currently has no authorization to access or use Crown land to develop the hydro power project. [15] On August 18, 2009, the Manager denied Greengen s application for a water licence. The Manager s decision states, in part, as follows: In my review of the application, I have noted the following: The proposed project will result in the permanent diversion of a significant amount of water out of Fries Creek, upstream of the Squamish First Nation (SFN) Fries Creek Cultural Site; The Land Use Agreement between the Province and the SFN identifies a management intent of maintaining natural and aesthetic conditions within cultural sites that are conducive to spiritual and cultural inspiration; The SFN has indicated that it is strongly opposed to your application and has identified that the diversion would significantly impact the ability of its members to conduct spiritual bathing practices in Fries Creek and negatively impact the SFN s social, ceremonial and cultural use of the Fries Creek Cultural Site; The only feasible access routes for the works proposed under the application must cross the Skwelwil em Squamish Estuary Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Brackendale Eagles Provincial Park (BEP), and/or the SFN Monmouth cultural site; The Ministry of Environment Environmental Stewardship Division does not support issuance of a Park Use Permit within BEP or crossing of the WMA; and, Your land tenure application for tenure on Crown land on which works proposed under the application would have been built, has been disallowed. Based on the above, my conclusions are that: (1) The project is inconsistent with the Land Use [Planning] Agreement between the Province and the SFN; (2) The hydro development project would adversely impact SFN s aboriginal rights related to the cultural site and, due to their nature, impacts to those interests could not be adequately mitigated or accommodated; (3) You have not obtained permits or consent necessary to secure access to the proposed site for the hydro development; (4) You do not hold an interest in land to which your water licence application could be made appurtenant. Therefore, you do not qualify to hold a licence pursuant to section 7 of the Water Act. As such, your water licence application is hereby refused. The Appeal [16] On September 17, 2009, Greengen appealed the Manager s decision denying its water licence application. In its Notice of Appeal, Greengen raised several grounds for appeal, which the Panel has summarized as follows:

4 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 4 the Manager relied on incorrect, misleading or unsubstantiated claims by the SFN regarding the Fries Creek Cultural Site and the impacts of the proposed hydro project on that site and the SFN s aboriginal rights; the Manager failed to provide Greengen with the factual evidence to substantiate the claims of the SFN regarding the proposed project s impact; the Manager expressly or implicitly agreed, unreasonable or incorrectly relied upon the July 26, 2007 Land Use Agreement between the Province of BC and the SFN; the Manager incorrectly interpreted the duty to consult and accommodate as providing the SFN with the authority to effectively approve or disapprove Greengen s water licence application; the Manager relied on incorrect, misleading or unsubstantiated information or claims regarding the permanence and amount of water to be diverted upstream of the Fries Creek Cultural site, the feasible access routes for the proposed project, and the need for a Park Use Permit to access the proposed project; the Manager incorrectly and improperly relied on facts and conclusions set out in the decision of the statutory decision-maker under the Land Act regarding Greengen s application for Crown land tenure. [17] In its Notice of Appeal, Greengen requested that the Board approve a licence to divert water, as set out in its water licence application and its development plan. [18] As stated above, the appeal was held in abeyance for several years at Greengen s request, so the parties could to attempt to resolve the matter. [19] However, on September 8, 2014, Greengen advised the Board that the matter had not been resolved, and Greengen requested that the appeal be set down for a hearing in the summer of [20] By a letter dated October 22, 2014, the Board offered the SFN an opportunity to participate in the appeal on a limited basis by providing opening and closing statements, and providing evidence on how the Manager s decision affects the SFN. [21] In a letter dated November 10, 2014, Chief Ian Campbell of the SFN accepted the Board s invitation for participant status in the appeal. [22] After canvassing the availability of the parties and participants for a hearing, the Board issued a letter dated December 29, 2014, advising that the appeal had been scheduled for a hearing commencing on September 28, [23] However, on January 16, 2015, the Board received a letter from Mr. Arvay, Q.C, Greengen s current legal counsel, advising that he had been retained to represent Greengen in the appeal. He also advised that, with the consent of the Manager and the SFN, he was requesting a postponement of the hearing until December 2015 or later. [24] On February 10, 2015, the Board issued a letter advising that the appeal had been re-scheduled for a hearing commencing on January 11, In that same

5 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 5 letter, the Board advised that it had determined that the SFN should have full party status in the appeal, and the Board set out a schedule for the parties to exchange their statements of points prior to the appeal hearing. The Manager s preliminary application to dismiss the appeal [25] On September 24, 2015, the Manager raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board s jurisdiction to grant the remedy requested in Greengen s Notice of Appeal; namely, to approve the issuance of a water licence to Greengen. The Manager submits that Greengen holds no interest in land to which a water licence can be appurtenant as required by the Water Act, and therefore, Greengen does not meet the eligibility requirements under section 7 of the Water Act for holding a water licence. On that basis, the Manager submits that the appeal should be dismissed. [26] The SFN supports the Manager s objection, and submits that the appeal should be dismissed. If the appeal is dismissed, the SFN requests that it be granted its costs associated with the appeal. [27] Greengen submits that the Board has the jurisdiction to grant a remedy that would amount to granting it a water licence. Specifically, the Board could grant a contingent licence pursuant to section 12(1)(f) of the Water Act, subject to a condition that Greengen could not use the licence until it obtained the requisite land tenure. Alternatively, Greengen submits that the Board could send the matter back to the Manager with directions that a water licence must be granted if and when Greengen obtains the requisite land tenure. In addition, Greengen submits that the Manager raised the objection too late in the appeal process, and therefore, the objection should not be considered by the Board. [28] In its final reply, Greengen also requested an award of costs in Greengen s favour. ISSUES 1. Whether the Manager raised the preliminary objection too late in the appeal process, and therefore, the objection should not be considered by the Board. 2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the basis that the remedies sought by Greengen are beyond the Board s jurisdiction. 3. Whether the Board should order of costs in favour of the SFN or Greengen. RELEVANT LEGISLATION [29] The following sections of the Water Act are relevant to this matter. Other relevant legislation is provided later in the decision, where it is referred to. Definitions 1 In this Act:

6 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 6 licensee and holder of a licence mean an owner of any land, mine or undertaking with respect to which a licence is issued under this or a former Act owner means a person entitled to possession of any land, mine or undertaking in British Columbia, and includes a person who has a substantial interest in the land, mine or undertaking; Who may acquire licences 7 A licence for any one, 2 or 3 of the purposes defined in section 1 may be issued by the comptroller or the regional water manager to any of the following: (a) an owner of land or a mine; (b) a holder of a certificate of convenience and necessity issued under the Public Utilities Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 323, or under the Water Utility Act; (c) a municipality, improvement district, water users' community or development district; (d) the Crown as represented by a minister appointed by the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor; (e) a commission, board or person having charge of the administration of any land, mine or other property owned or controlled by a ministry, department, branch or other subdivision of the government of Canada or of British Columbia; (f) the Greater Vancouver Water District or any other water district incorporated by an Act of the Legislature; (g) the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. Powers of comptroller or regional water manager respecting applications 12 (1) With respect to an application, whether objections to it are filed or not, the comptroller or the regional water manager may (a) refuse the application, (b) amend the application in any respect, (c) grant all or part of the application, (d) require additional plans or other information, (e) require the applicant to give security for the purposes and in the amount and form the comptroller or the regional water manager considers in the public interest, and (f) issue to the applicant one or more conditional or final licences on the terms the comptroller or the regional water manager considers proper.

7 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 7 (3) With respect to an application for a licence, the comptroller or regional water manager must determine, in accordance with section 13, the precedence and appurtenancy of any licence to be issued under the application. Purpose, precedence and appurtenancy of licences 13 The comptroller or regional water manager must ensure that every licence issued on or after June 21, 1995 (c) specifies as the appurtenancy of the licence an appurtenancy that (i) is located entirely in British Columbia, (ii) consists of land, a mine or an undertaking, or any combination of those things, and (iii) is adequately described in the licence. DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS 1. Whether the Manager raised the preliminary objection too late in the appeal process, and therefore, the objection should not be considered by the Board. The Parties submissions [30] Greengen submits that the Board s Procedure Manual states as follows at page 15: Preliminary objection If a respondent, or any other party to an appeal has information that may call into question the appellant s ability to appeal the decision (e.g. no appealable decision was made or the appellant does not have standing), the information should be forwarded to the Board as soon as possible. Failure to do so may result in an unnecessary hearing at significant cost to all involved. [underlining added in Greengen s submissions] [31] Greengen notes that the Manager raised the objection nearly six years after Greengen filed the appeal. Greengen submits that the Manager s assertion that the Board lacks the jurisdiction to issue a licence to Greengen contradicts the Manager s August 18, 2009 decision, which expressly stated that Greengen has a right to appeal the Manager s decision to the Board. [32] Greengen argues that, in these circumstances, the objection should not be entertained, because Greenegen will be significantly and irreparably prejudiced if the Board now determines that the appeal cannot proceed. Had the Manager raised the objection as soon as possible, it would have significantly affected Greengen s planning and strategy regarding the proposed project over the intervening years.

8 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 8 [33] The SFN did not address this issue. [34] In reply, the Manager submits that the appeal was held in abeyance for over five years at Greengen s request. At that time, Greengen s then legal counsel requested that the appeal be held in abeyance to allow Greengen to attempt to resolve the issues which led to the denial of the water licence. The Manager brought the preliminary matter to the Board s attention before the appeal hearing to avoid the possibility of an unnecessary and costly hearing. The Manager did so after making inquiries about whether Greengen had taken steps to challenge the Land Act decision or otherwise obtain an interest in Crown land for the proposed project. The Manager argues that it was not her responsibility, nor would it have been appropriate for her, to advise Greengen of its legal remedies regarding the Land Act decision. The Manager submits that, if Greengen is prejudiced, this is due to Greengen s own failure to resolve the issue of land ownership and fulfill the statutory requirements for eligibility to hold a water licence. The Panel s findings [35] The delay in this appeal being set down for a hearing is entirely Greengen s responsibility. The appeal was held in abeyance for over five years at Greengen s request. In early September 2014, Greengen advised the Board that the matter had not been resolved, and Greengen requested that the appeal be set down for a hearing in the summer of Shortly thereafter, the Board began making inquiries with the parties and the participant about their availability for a hearing. [36] After canvassing their availability, the Board issued a letter on December 29, 2014, advising that the appeal had been scheduled for a hearing commencing on September 28, However, on January 16, 2015, Greengen s newly retained legal counsel advised that, with the consent of the Manager and the SFN, he was requesting a postponement of the hearing until December 2015 or later. In February 2015, the Board then set the hearing dates for the appeal, with the hearing scheduled to start in January [37] Thus, the delay between the filing of the appeal and the Board setting the January 2016 hearing dates was at Greengen s request, and there can be no finding of prejudice in its favour. [38] The Panel further finds that the Manager raised the preliminary objection at a reasonable point in the appeal process. The Panel notes that the Board s policy, as cited by Greengen, states that objections should be raised as soon as possible to avoid an unnecessary hearing at significant cost to all involved. Although the Manager raised the preliminary objection after the appeal was scheduled for a hearing, there was sufficient time for the parties and participant to make submissions on the objection, and for the Board to decide the objection, well before the hearing would commence in January In fact, the objection was raised well before Greengen s statement of points is due on December 4, The timing of the preliminary objection has caused no prejudice to Greengen in terms of its ability to respond to the preliminary objection, or to know the outcome of the objection well in advance of the hearing. [39] In these circumstances, the Panel rejects Greengen s submission that the preliminary objection was raised too late in the appeal process to be considered by

9 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 9 the Panel. The objection was raised well in advance of the appeal hearing, such that the majority of the costs associated with a hearing will be avoided if the hearing is cancelled. This is consistent with the Board s policy. 2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the basis that the remedies sought by Greengen are beyond the Board s jurisdiction. The Parties submissions [40] The Manager submits that section 7 of the Water Act sets out the persons that are eligible to hold a water licence. In the present case, section 7(a) is most relevant, and it provides that a water licence may be issued to an owner of land or a mine. Section 1 of the Water Act defines owner as meaning a person entitled to possession of any land, mine or undertaking in British Columbia, and includes a person who has a substantial interest in the land, mine or undertaking. The Manager submits that Greengen falls into none of the categories listed in section 7, as the Crown land tenure that was needed to allow for the construction and operation of the works proposed in Greengen s water licence application was denied. The Manager submits that, although the Ministry s practice is to accept applications for water licences while a tenure application for the appurtenant land is pending, an applicant must be an owner of land when the licence is issued. The Manager argues that section 7 does not allow a person to obtain a water licence contingent upon the licensee later obtaining possession of the appurtenant land or a substantial interest in the land. The Manager also submits that the definition of licensee and holder of a licence in section 1 of the Water Act supports this proposition. In summary, the Manager submits that a licensee must be an owner of land within the meaning of the Water Act, and not a prospective owner of land. [41] In support of those submissions, the Manager referred to the Board s decision in Fugger v. British Columbia (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks), [2001] B.C.E.A. No. 22 ( Fugger ), at paras In that case, the Board held that, in order to be an owner of land within the meaning of the Water Act, a person must be entitled to possession of land, which generally means control or occupancy of land, including a substantial interest in land. [42] The Manager also argues that granting a water licence to a person without a substantial interest in land would be contrary to the system of water rights allocation on which the Water Act is based, which provides that water licences run with the conveyance or other disposition of the land to which they are appurtenant. In that regard, the Manager notes that section 13(c) of the Water Act requires that a regional water manager ensure that every water licence specifies an appurtenancy that is located in BC, and consists of land, a mine or an undertaking, or any combination of those things, and is adequately described. Further, under section 16 of the Water Act, a licence and any rights or obligations associated with it pass with the conveyance or other disposition of the appurtenant land, mine or undertaking. The Manager submits that, if a water licence could be issued to an individual who does own appurtenant land, it would be difficult to determine the priority of that licence relative to other licences, and to track successors to that licence.

10 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 10 [43] In support of those submissions, the Manager referred to the Board s decision in Fretts v. Regional Water Manager, [2012] B.C.E.A. No. 20 ( Fretts ), at paras In that case, the Board held that a licensee can only hold the rights and obligations granted under a water licence in his or her capacity as an owner of the appurtenant land, and not as his or her separate personal property. [44] The SFN submits that the Manager was bound to reject Greengen s water licence application, given the prior Land Use Agreement between the Province and the SFN, which governs Crown land use, and given the provincial Crown s constitutional duty to accommodate the SFN s aboriginal rights. Moreover, the SFN agrees with the Manager that the Board has no jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought by Greengen. The SFN notes that Greengen has not challenged the denial of its Crown land tenure application under the Land Act. The SFN submits that Greengen s appeal of the Manager s decision should be dismissed forthwith, and it would be prejudicial to the SFN to further delay rejecting the appeal. [45] Greengen submits that the Board may grant a contingent licence to Greengen under section 12(1)(f) of the Water Act, which provides a regional water manager with the authority to issue a conditional or final water licence on the terms that regional water manager considers proper. Greengen argues that the Board, in deciding the appeal, may exercise the broad discretion of the Manager under section 12(1)(f), and may grant a water licence containing a term that Greengen could not use the licence until it obtains the requisite land tenure. [46] Alternatively, Greengen submits that, after hearing the appeal on its merits, the Board may decide to send the matter back to the Manager with directions to reconsider the SFN s aboriginal rights claims and whether they constitute a basis for rejecting Greengen s application, and if not, direct the Manager to issue a licence to Greengen if and when Greengen obtains the requisite land tenure. [47] In response to the SFN s submissions, Greengen submits that, although the SFN asserts that the Manager s preliminary objection is correct, the SFN s submission should be given no weight, because it fails to address the substance of the Manager s submissions. In addition, Greengen submits that the Board can consider and apply the Land Use Agreement in deciding the appeal. In that regard, Greengen submits that the Land Use Agreement was executed over two years after Greengen applied for the water licence and the requisite land tenure, and the Land Use Agreement states that it applies to new applications for Land Act dispositions. Greengen submits, therefore, that the Land Use Agreement does not apply to Greengen s proposed project. Greengen submits that, even if the Land Use Agreement applies to its proposed project, the Land Use Agreement does not provide the SFN with a veto over the project. In addition, Greengen argues that the question of whether it can still challenge the denial of its Crown land tenure application is outside of the Board s jurisdiction. [48] In reply, the Manager submits that the Water Act provides no authority to issue a contingent water licence. She submits that her discretion under section 12(1)(f) of the Water Act must be exercised within the parameters of that Act, including section 7 which limits the categories of persons or entities that may hold a water licence. The Manager argues that a water licence can only be issued to an applicant who falls within one of those categories. Furthermore, interpreting

11 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 11 section 12 of the Water Act as allowing someone to obtain water rights that are unconnected to the land on which the water is intended to be used would amount to allowing the person to reserve water rights while they had no ability to make beneficial use of the water. In addition, it is unclear how such a licence would comply with section 13(c) of the Water Act, which requires the appurtenant land to be adequately described in the licence. [49] Regarding Greengen s alternative remedy, the Manager argues that it would be inappropriate for the Board to remit the matter back to the Manager with directions to issue a licence if and when Greengen obtains the requisite land tenure. She submits that such a direction would amount to inappropriately fettering the Manager s discretion to issue a water licence. The Manager argues that, regardless of whether Greengen might have some success on the issues in the appeal, it would be pointless to hold a two-week hearing, at significant cost to all involved, when neither the Board nor the Manager are in a position to issue a water licence. The Manager submits that Greengen has taken no steps to challenge the Land Act decision or to otherwise obtain an interest in land to which a water licence could be appurtenant, and the Board has no jurisdiction to make a determination regarding the merits of the Land Act decision. The Panel s findings [50] At this stage of the proceeding, the Panel is concerned with the jurisdiction of the Board to grant the relief sought by Greengen in its Notice of Appeal and its submissions on the preliminary application. The Panel is not concerned with the question of whether any relief should be granted to Greengen in light of the fact that the land tenure has been refused, but rather whether any relief could be granted in such circumstances, it being understood that the question of land tenure is not res judicata. [51] In that regard, the Panel notes that Greengen is free to make another application for land tenure on the same, similar or different grounds than the application that was refused in The question of whether and how such a subsequent application for tenure would be handled by the statutory decisionmaker under the Land Act is not a matter for the Board, but it cannot be said at this stage that Greengen will never receive land tenure. [52] It is without question that a water licence cannot be issued other than appurtenant to land. This is clear from sections 12(3) and 13(c) of the Water Act, which state that a regional water manager must determine the appurtenancy of any licence to be issued, and must ensure that every licence that is issued specifies an appurtenancy that consists of land, a mine or an undertaking in BC. Without appurtenant land, (or an appurtenant mine or undertaking, which are defined terms in the Water Act), no licence under the Water Act may exist. Greengen does not take issue with this proposition, but rather argues that the Manager and, by extension, the Board, can issue a water licence conditional upon a grant of land tenure. In support of this proposition, Greengen cites section 12(1)(f) of the Water Act, which provides the Manager with broad discretion to issue a conditional or final licence on the terms the comptroller or the regional water manager considers proper [underlining added].

12 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 12 [53] The difficulty with Greengen s submission is that, whether a licence is conditional or final, it must still comply with the statutory requirements of a licence as defined in section 7 of the Water Act. Section 7(a) is particularly relevant to the present case, and it provides that a licence (be it conditional or final) may only be issued to an owner of land or a mine [underlining added]. The word owner is defined in section 1 of the Water Act to mean a person entitled to possession of any land, mine or an undertaking in British Columbia, and includes a person who has a substantial interest in the land, mine or undertaking [underlining added]. [54] Section 7 of the Water Act does not provide for the issuance of a licence to a person who will, or may, become an owner, but rather, only a person who is an owner. Therefore, the Panel concludes that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Manager could never issue a licence to someone who is not an owner. Put another way, the Panel concludes that the Manager could never issue a licence conditional upon that person becoming, at some future time, an owner. As such, even if Greengen was successful on the merits of its appeal, the Board could neither order that a licence be issued to Greengen subject to a condition that Greengen become an owner, nor could the Board direct the Manager to issue such a licence. [55] Although this Panel is not bound by previous decisions of the Board, the Panel notes that this reasoning is consistent with the Board s decision in Columbia Power Corporation v. Comptroller of Water Rights (Appeal No WAT-003(a), March 19, 2003), in which the Board concluded at page 13 that a company holding an unexercised option to purchase land was not a riparian owner of land. The Board concluded that, until the option to purchase was exercised, the company did not have ownership or possession of any riparian lands. [56] The Panel also concludes that this interpretation of the Water Act is consistent with the purpose and structure of the Water Act. For example, section 27 of the Water Act provides that a licensee may, in certain circumstances, expropriate land reasonably required for the construction, maintenance, improvement or operation of works authorized under his or her licence. It could not have been intended by the legislature that a person could acquire a conditional licence without a current appurtenancy and, in reliance upon section 27, proceed to expropriate the very land necessary to become an owner entitled to hold a licence. An interpretation of the Water Act that would, or could, result in a subversion of the provisions of the Land Act dealing with land tenure is to be avoided. [57] Given that the Board, on appeal, only has only the powers set out under section 92(8) of the Water Act, including the powers of the Manager under the Water Act, the Panel concludes that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to provide the remedies sought by Greengen. This dismissal is entirely without prejudice to the right of Greengen, should it become an owner within the meaning of the Water Act, to make application for a water licence on the same or different grounds as the licence refused in this case. [58] For all of these reasons, the Manager s preliminary application is allowed, and the appeal is dismissed.

13 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page Whether the Board should make an order of costs in favour of the SFN or Greengen. The Parties submissions [59] The SFN submits that it has been subjected to costs on a matter (i.e., Greengen s appeal) which had no merit or chance of success, in an extraordinary circumstance of a third-party challenge to First Nation accommodation, and costs should be granted directly to the SFN if the appeal is dismissed. [60] The SFN s submissions do not indicate which party (i.e., the Manager, Greengen, or both) should be ordered to pay the SFN s costs. [61] Greengen submits that, if any party is entitled to costs, it is Greengen. Greengen submits that its appeal is not frivolous, vexatious or lacking any chance of success. It also submits that the Manager and the SFN have brought their objection(s) six years after the appeal was commenced, and the failure of those parties to act in a timely manner constitutes a special circumstance meriting an award of costs in Greengen s favour. Greengen submits that it will be significantly and irreparably prejudiced if the appeal cannot proceed based on either the Manager s objection or the SFN s new objection. [62] The Manager submits that each party should bear its own costs in relation to this preliminary matter. The Manager argues that there is no basis to award costs, as the preliminary objection was raised to avoid the possibility of a hearing for an appeal in which no remedy may be available to Greengen. Further, the Manager submits that, if Greengen is prejudiced, that prejudice is due to Greengen s own inaction in failing to resolve the issue of land ownership so that it could meet the requirements in section 7 of the Water Act for holding a water licence. The Panel s findings The SFN s application for costs [63] Although the Board s February 10, 2015 letter provided the SFN with full party status in the appeal, the SFN has not yet determined the extent to which it will participate in the appeal hearing. The SFN s submissions state, in part, as follows: The position of the Squamish Nation, and the extent to which the Squamish Nation will participate in the proposed appeal, has not yet been determined. We must await the production of evidence and Statement of Points from the Appellant. [underlining added] [64] Based on the SFN s submissions, it is unclear at this time whether the SFN has accepted, or intends to accept, party status in the appeal. The Panel notes that the Board s power to award costs is limited to parties. Section 95(2) of the Environmental Management Act states that the Board may make orders requiring a party to pay all or part of the costs of another party in connection with the appeal, as determined by the appeal board [underlining added]. Thus, the Board may not have the authority to make costs awards in respect of participants who do not have

14 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 14 party status in an appeal. Without full argument on this point, and given that the SFN s submissions are unclear regarding whether the SFN intends to accept party status in the appeal, it is unclear whether the Board has any jurisdiction to make an order of costs in respect of the SFN at this time. However, for the purposes of addressing the SFN s request for costs, the Board will assume that the SFN either accepts or intended to accept party status in the appeal. [65] The Board s policy on costs is set out in its Procedure Manual, which states as follows at pages 45-46: The Board has not adopted a policy that follows the civil court practice of loser pays the winner s costs. The objectives of the Board s costs policy are to encourage responsible conduct throughout the appeal process and to discourage unreasonable and/or abusive conduct. Thus, the Board s policy is to award costs in special circumstances. Those circumstances include: (a) where, having regard to all of the circumstances, an appeal is brought for improper reasons or is frivolous or vexatious in nature; (b) where the action of a party, or the failure of a party to act in a timely manner, results in prejudice to any of the other parties; (c) where a party, without prior notice to the Board, fails to attend a hearing or to send a representative to a hearing when properly served with a notice of hearing ; (d) where a party unreasonably delays the proceeding; (e) where a party s failure to comply with an order or direction of the Board, or a panel, has resulted in prejudice to another party; and (f) where a party has continued to deal with issues which the Board has advised are irrelevant. A panel of the Board is not bound to order costs when one of the abovementioned examples occurs, nor does the panel have to find that one of the examples must have occurred to order costs. [66] Although the appeal was filed in 2009, the Panel finds that the delay in setting the appeal down for a hearing was not the result of unreasonable behaviour by any party, or for an improper purpose. The appeal was held in abeyance at Greengen s request so it could attempt to resolve the issues in the appeal without the need for a hearing. Although the matter was not resolved, the Board encourages parties to attempt to resolve appeals without the need for a hearing, as this can save costs. [67] In addition, although the SFN characterizes the appeal as an extraordinary circumstance of a third-party challenge to First Nation accommodation, the Panel notes that it is not extraordinary for appeals before the Board to involve issues of consultation and accommodation in respect of aboriginal rights. The Board has decided several previous appeals that involved issues regarding the Province s duty to consult with and accommodate First Nations in relation to a water licence issued

15 DECISION NO WAT-015(a) Page 15 to a third party. As such, the subject matter and circumstances of the present appeal are not extraordinary. [68] Accordingly, the Panel finds that there are no special circumstances that warrant an award of costs in favour of the SFN. Greengen s application for costs [69] The Panel has already found, under Issue 1, that the delay between the filing of the appeal and the Board setting the January 2016 hearing dates was entirely Greengen s responsibility. Consequently, the Panel finds that any prejudice that Greengen may suffer from that delay does not justify an award of costs against the Manager or the SFN. Also, under Issue 1, the Panel found that the Manager raised the preliminary objection at a reasonable point in the appeal process, with sufficient time to for the parties and participant to make submissions on the objection, and for the Board to decide the objection, well before the appeal hearing. The timing of the preliminary objection caused no prejudice to Greengen in terms of its ability to respond to the preliminary objection, or to know the outcome of the objection well in advance of the hearing. [70] Consequently, the Panel finds that there are no special circumstances that warrant an award of costs in favour of Greengen. DECISION [71] In making this decision, the Panel of the Environmental Appeal Board has carefully considered all of the evidence before it, whether or not specifically reiterated here. [72] For the reasons provided above, the Panel finds that the Manager did not raise the preliminary objection too late. The Panel also finds that the Board has no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by Greengen. Accordingly, the Manager s application to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is allowed. [73] The applications for costs in favour of the SFN and Greengen are denied. Robert Wickett Robert Wickett, Q.C., Vice Chair Environmental Appeal Board November 19, 2015

As Represented by Chief and Council (the "Takla Lake First Nation") (Collectively the "Parties")

As Represented by Chief and Council (the Takla Lake First Nation) (Collectively the Parties) Takla lake First Nation Interim Agreement on Forest & Range Opportunities (the "Agreement") Between: The Takla lake First Nation As Represented by Chief and Council (the "Takla Lake First Nation") And

More information

Matsqui First Nation Interim Agreement on Forest & Range Opportunities (the "Agreement") Between: The Matsqui First Nation

Matsqui First Nation Interim Agreement on Forest & Range Opportunities (the Agreement) Between: The Matsqui First Nation Matsqui First Nation Interim Agreement on Forest & Range Opportunities (the "Agreement") Between: The Matsqui First Nation As Represented by Chief and Council (the "Matsqui First Nation") And Her Majesty

More information

Popkum Indian Band Interim Agreement on Forest & Range Opportunities (the "Agreement'J) Between: The Popkum Indian Band

Popkum Indian Band Interim Agreement on Forest & Range Opportunities (the Agreement'J) Between: The Popkum Indian Band Popkum Indian Band Interim Agreement on Forest & Range Opportunities (the "Agreement'J) Between: The Popkum Indian Band As Represented by Chief and Council (the "Popkum Indian Band") And Her Majesty the

More information

Environmental Appeal Board

Environmental Appeal Board Environmental Appeal Board Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 APPEAL

More information

Environmental Appeal Board

Environmental Appeal Board Environmental Appeal Board Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia V8W 3E9 Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W

More information

Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal

Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Fourth Floor, 747 Fort Street Victoria, British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 Website:

More information

Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal

Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Fourth Floor, 747 Fort Street Victoria, British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 DECISION

More information

Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal

Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Fourth Floor, 747 Fort Street Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3E9 Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W

More information

A WATER LICENSEE S RIGHT TO EXPROPRIATE LAND (Updated: February 19, 2015)

A WATER LICENSEE S RIGHT TO EXPROPRIATE LAND (Updated: February 19, 2015) A WATER LICENSEE S RIGHT TO EXPROPRIATE LAND (Updated: February 19, 2015) A water licence entitles its holder the right to: Expropriate any privately owned land reasonably required for the construction,

More information

Forest Appeals Commission

Forest Appeals Commission Forest Appeals Commission Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 Website:

More information

Environmental Appeal Board

Environmental Appeal Board Environmental Appeal Board Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 DECISION

More information

Office of the. British Columbia, Canada. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to section 138(1) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.267

Office of the. British Columbia, Canada. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to section 138(1) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.267 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to section 138(1) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.267 PH: 2016-01 OPCC File: 2011-6657/2012-8138 In the matter of the Public Hearing into the Complaint against Constable

More information

Environmental Appeal Board

Environmental Appeal Board Environmental Appeal Board Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia V8W 3E9 Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W

More information

British Columbia. Health Professions Review Board. Rules of Practice and Procedure for Reviews under the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

British Columbia. Health Professions Review Board. Rules of Practice and Procedure for Reviews under the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. British Columbia Health Professions Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure for Reviews under the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183 These rules for reviews to the Health Professions Review

More information

Office of the. British Columbia, Canada. NOTICE OF REVIEW ON THE RECORD Pursuant to section 138(1) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

Office of the. British Columbia, Canada. NOTICE OF REVIEW ON THE RECORD Pursuant to section 138(1) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. NOTICE OF REVIEW ON THE RECORD Pursuant to section 138(1) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.267 OPCC File: 2015-11249 In the matter of the Review on the Record into the Ordered Investigation against Constable

More information

SITE C PROJECT TRIPARTITE LAND AGREEMENT

SITE C PROJECT TRIPARTITE LAND AGREEMENT Execution Version SITE C PROJECT TRIPARTITE LAND AGREEMENT This Agreement is dated, 2017 BETWEEN: AND: AND: WHEREAS: DOIG RIVER FIRST NATION, a band within the meaning of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.

More information

Lake Babine Nation Interim Forestry Agreement (the "Agreement") Between: The Lake Babine Nation. As Represented by Chief and Council ("Lake Babine")

Lake Babine Nation Interim Forestry Agreement (the Agreement) Between: The Lake Babine Nation. As Represented by Chief and Council (Lake Babine) WHEREAS: Lake Babine Nation Interim Forestry Agreement (the "Agreement") Between: The Lake Babine Nation As Represented by Chief and Council ("Lake Babine") And Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province

More information

USER GUIDE. Consolidated Regulations of British Columbia

USER GUIDE. Consolidated Regulations of British Columbia Prepared by the Office of Legislative Counsel, Ministry of Attorney General. Please address questions and comments about this User Guide or the Consolidated Regulations of British Columbia to: Registrar

More information

PROJECT APPROVAL CERTIFICATE M02-01

PROJECT APPROVAL CERTIFICATE M02-01 IN THE MATTER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT, RSBC 1996, c. 119 (the Act ) AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PROJECT APPROVAL CERTIFICATE BY REDFERN RESOURCES LTD. ( Redfern ) FOR THE TULSEQUAH

More information

Health Professions Review Board

Health Professions Review Board Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: 250 953-4956 Toll Free: 1-888-953-4986 (within BC) Facsimile: 250 953-3195 Mailing Address: PO 9429 STN PROV

More information

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL (revised July 2016) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.00 The Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal 1.10 Introduction 1.11 Definitions 1.20 Role of the Tribunal

More information

Order MINISTRY OF WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION

Order MINISTRY OF WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION Order 02-51 MINISTRY OF WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION Mark Grady, Adjudicator October 24, 2002 Quicklaw Cite: [2002] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 52 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/order02-51.pdf Office

More information

Environmental Appeal Board

Environmental Appeal Board Environmental Appeal Board Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 APPEAL

More information

Office of the. British Columbia, Canada. NOTICE OF REVIEW ON THE RECORD Pursuant to section 138(1) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

Office of the. British Columbia, Canada. NOTICE OF REVIEW ON THE RECORD Pursuant to section 138(1) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. NOTICE OF REVIEW ON THE RECORD Pursuant to section 138(1) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.267 OPCC File: 2017-13291 In the matter of the Review on the Record into the Ordered Investigation against Special

More information

Financial Services Tribunal. Practice Directives and Guidelines

Financial Services Tribunal. Practice Directives and Guidelines Financial Services Tribunal Practice Directives and Guidelines Revised October 2012 Financial Services Tribunal Practice Directives and Guidelines 1.0 Introduction The purpose of these Practice Directives

More information

The British Columbia Utilities Commission: Customer Complaints Guide

The British Columbia Utilities Commission: Customer Complaints Guide The British Columbia Utilities Commission: Customer Complaints Guide FEBRUARY 2017 Table of Contents List of Acronyms and Glossary... 3 1 The Commission... 4 2 Who the Commission Regulates... 4 2.1 Regulated

More information

Office of the. British Columbia, Canada. NOTICE OF REVIEW ON THE RECORD Pursuant to section 137(2) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

Office of the. British Columbia, Canada. NOTICE OF REVIEW ON THE RECORD Pursuant to section 137(2) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. NOTICE OF REVIEW ON THE RECORD Pursuant to section 137(2) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.267 In the matter of the Review on the Record into the Ordered Investigation of Corporal Trish McLaughlin of the West

More information

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. May 14, 2015

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. May 14, 2015 RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE May 14, 2015 INDEX PART 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 PART 2 GENERAL RULES... 2 Rule 1 How the Rules are Applied... 2 Applying the Rules... 2 Conflict with the Act... 2 Rule 2 Consequences

More information

COASTAL GASLINK PIPELINE PROJECT NATURAL GAS PIPELINE BENEFITS AGREEMENT

COASTAL GASLINK PIPELINE PROJECT NATURAL GAS PIPELINE BENEFITS AGREEMENT COASTAL GASLINK PIPELINE PROJECT NATURAL GAS PIPELINE BENEFITS AGREEMENT BETWEEN: AND: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations

More information

Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal

Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Oil and Gas Appeal Tribunal Fourth Floor, 747 Fort Street Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3E9 Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W

More information

RESPONSIBLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT

RESPONSIBLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT Province of Alberta RESPONSIBLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT Statutes of Alberta, Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer Suite 700,

More information

INCREMENTAL TREATY AGREEMENT Wensley Bench

INCREMENTAL TREATY AGREEMENT Wensley Bench INCREMENTAL TREATY AGREEMENT Wensley Bench BETWEEN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (hereinafter

More information

Lil wat Nation Land Use Referral Consultation Policy

Lil wat Nation Land Use Referral Consultation Policy Lil wat Nation Land Use Referral Consultation Policy Ratified by Chief and Council February 21, 2012 The Líl, wat Nation P.O. BOX 602, MOUNT CURRIE, BRITISH COLUMBIA V0N 2K0 PHONE 1.604.894.6115 FAX 1.604.894.6841

More information

In the Supreme Court of British Columbia In the Matter of the Judicial Review Procedure Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c Between: Don Smith Petitioner

In the Supreme Court of British Columbia In the Matter of the Judicial Review Procedure Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c Between: Don Smith Petitioner No. 0123067 Vancouver Registry In the Supreme Court of British Columbia In the Matter of the Judicial Review Procedure Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241 Between: Don Smith Petitioner And: Betty Jones Respondent

More information

File OF-Fac-Oil-N April All Parties to Hearing Order OH

File OF-Fac-Oil-N April All Parties to Hearing Order OH File OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01 9 April 2013 To: All Parties to Hearing Order OH-4-2011 Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. (Northern Gateway) Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Application (Application) of

More information

September 14, No Crown Appeal of Schoenborn High-Risk Accused Ruling

September 14, No Crown Appeal of Schoenborn High-Risk Accused Ruling Media Statement September 14, 2017 17-18 No Crown Appeal of Schoenborn High-Risk Accused Ruling Victoria - The BC Prosecution Service (BCPS) announced today that it will not file an appeal from the decision

More information

Office of the. British Columbia, Canada. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to section 138(1) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.267

Office of the. British Columbia, Canada. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to section 138(1) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.267 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to section 138(1) Police Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.267 In the matter of the Public Hearing into the Conduct of Inspector John de Haas of the Vancouver Police Department PH:

More information

JUDICIAL REVIEW. Supreme Court Civil Rule 4-3(6) sets out how service on the Attorney General is affected.

JUDICIAL REVIEW. Supreme Court Civil Rule 4-3(6) sets out how service on the Attorney General is affected. JUDICIAL REVIEW What is it? A judicial review is a review of a decision that has been made by an administrative tribunal or an administrative decision maker. A Supreme Court Justice decides whether the

More information

Health Professions Review Board

Health Professions Review Board Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: 250 953-4956 Toll Free: 1-888-953-4986 (within BC) Facsimile: 250 953-3195 Mailing Address: PO 9429 STN PROV

More information

PRELIMINARY Application for a NEW Authorization. New Permit, Approval, or Operational Certificate

PRELIMINARY Application for a NEW Authorization. New Permit, Approval, or Operational Certificate PRELIMINARY Application for a NEW Authorization for authorization to discharge waste under the Environmental Management Act New Permit, Approval, or Operational Certificate FORM REFERENCE CODE: EPD-EMA-01.2

More information

COASTAL GASLINK PIPELINE PROJECT NATURAL GAS PIPELINE BENEFITS AGREEMENT

COASTAL GASLINK PIPELINE PROJECT NATURAL GAS PIPELINE BENEFITS AGREEMENT COASTAL GASLINK PIPELINE PROJECT NATURAL GAS PIPELINE BENEFITS AGREEMENT BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations

More information

ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is dated the 12th day of June, 2012 BETWEEN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (

More information

RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD REGULATION

RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD REGULATION Province of Alberta NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD ACT RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD REGULATION Alberta Regulation 77/2005 With amendments up to and including Alberta

More information

IN THE MATTER OF the Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, Chapter 473, as amended. and

IN THE MATTER OF the Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, Chapter 473, as amended. and BRITISH COLUMBIA UTILITIES COMMISSION ORDER NUMBER G-41-06 SIXTH FLOOR, 900 HOWE STREET, BOX 250 VANCOUVER, B.C. V6Z 2N3 CANADA web site: http://www.bcuc.com TELEPHONE: (604) 660-4700 BC TOLL FREE: 1-800-663-1385

More information

BETWEEN: The Complainant COMPLAINANT. AND: A Dentist REGISTRANT. BEFORE: William R. Cottick, Panel Chair REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN: The Complainant COMPLAINANT. AND: A Dentist REGISTRANT. BEFORE: William R. Cottick, Panel Chair REVIEW BOARD Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8W 3E9 Complainant v. College of Dental Surgeons of BC DECISION NO. 2018-HPA-047(a) August 15, 2018 In the matter of an application

More information

ACCESSING GOVERNMENT INFORMATION IN. British Columbia

ACCESSING GOVERNMENT INFORMATION IN. British Columbia ACCESSING GOVERNMENT INFORMATION IN British Columbia RESOURCES Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) http://www.oipcbc.org/legislation/foi-act%20(2004).pdf British Columbia Information

More information

The Scope of Consultation and the Role of Administrative Tribunals in Upholding the Honour of the Crown: the Rio Tinto Alcan Decision 1

The Scope of Consultation and the Role of Administrative Tribunals in Upholding the Honour of the Crown: the Rio Tinto Alcan Decision 1 The Scope of Consultation and the Role of Administrative Tribunals in Upholding the Honour of the Crown: the Rio Tinto Alcan Decision 1 By Peter R. Grant 2 Introduction In the 1950s, the government of

More information

Forest Appeals Commission Annual Report 2011

Forest Appeals Commission Annual Report 2011 Forest Appeals Commission Annual Report 2011 Forest Appeals Commission Fourth Floor, 747 Fort Street Victoria, British Columbia Telephone: 250-387-3464 Facsimile: 250-356-9923 Mailing Address: P.O. Box

More information

Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations

Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations Consultation with First Nations and Accommodation Obligations John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. prepared for a conference on the Impact of the Haida and Taku River Decisions presented by the Pacific Business and

More information

Environmental Appeal Board

Environmental Appeal Board Environmental Appeal Board Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia V8W 3E5 Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W

More information

In this policy and the corresponding procedure: abandoned means deserted, surrendered, forsaken, ceded or discarded;

In this policy and the corresponding procedure: abandoned means deserted, surrendered, forsaken, ceded or discarded; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Subject Policy PL 3.03.02 1 of 5 Compiled by - Branch Lands & Waters Section Land Management Replaces Directive Title Unauthorized Occupations Control and Removal

More information

DRINKING WATER OFFICERS GUIDE: PART A LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

DRINKING WATER OFFICERS GUIDE: PART A LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS : PART A LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS Page 2 PART A: Contents CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES... 5 1.1 HEALTH AUTHORITIES... 5 1.2 DRINKING WATER OFFICERS AND DELEGATES... 5 1.2.1 Relationship

More information

INTRODUCTION... 3 WHY DOES THE OIPC HOLD INQUIRIES?... 3 WHO PARTICIPATES IN AN INQUIRY?... 3 HOW LONG DOES AN INQUIRY TAKE?... 4

INTRODUCTION... 3 WHY DOES THE OIPC HOLD INQUIRIES?... 3 WHO PARTICIPATES IN AN INQUIRY?... 3 HOW LONG DOES AN INQUIRY TAKE?... 4 , 201 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 3 WHY DOES THE OIPC HOLD INQUIRIES?... 3 WHO PARTICIPATES IN AN INQUIRY?... 3 HOW LONG DOES AN INQUIRY TAKE?... 4 HOW DO I PREPARE FOR A WRITTEN INQUIRY?...

More information

Produced January 2017 by Community Legal Assistance Society (CLAS) Original author: David Mossop, Q.C.

Produced January 2017 by Community Legal Assistance Society (CLAS) Original author: David Mossop, Q.C. Options Produced January 2017 by Community Legal Assistance Society (CLAS) Original author: David Mossop, Q.C. 2010 revisions by: Kendra Milne and Jess Hadley 2011 and 2012 revisions by: Jess Hadley (affecting

More information

RE-INVENTING CRIMINAL JUSTICE:

RE-INVENTING CRIMINAL JUSTICE: RE-INVENTING CRIMINAL JUSTICE: THE NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM Final Report The Fairmont Empress Victoria, BC January 13/ 14 2012 The Fourth National Criminal Justice Symposium In January 2012, approximately 75

More information

This AGREEMENT is made the 31st day of August, 2009 (the "Effective Date").

This AGREEMENT is made the 31st day of August, 2009 (the Effective Date). TSAY KEH ENTERPRISES AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is made the 31st day of August, 2009 (the "Effective Date"). BETWEEN: AND: AND: WHEREAS: TSAY KEH ENTERPRISES LTD. (Incorporation No. 0382687). a corporation

More information

Written Submissions by Stswecem c Xgat tem First Nation. Submitted to the Expert Panel regarding the National Energy Board Modernization Review

Written Submissions by Stswecem c Xgat tem First Nation. Submitted to the Expert Panel regarding the National Energy Board Modernization Review Stswecem c Xgat tem Written Submissions by Stswecem c Xgat tem First Nation Submitted to the Expert Panel regarding the National Energy Board Modernization Review March 29, 2017 Introduction Stswecem c

More information

MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH

MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH May 12, 2011 11-09 Charges Laid in Relation to Testimony at Braidwood Inquiry Victoria The Criminal Justice Branch of the Ministry of Attorney General today announced

More information

WATER POWER. The Water Power Act. being

WATER POWER. The Water Power Act. being 1 WATER POWER c. W-6 The Water Power Act being Chapter W-6 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978 (effective February 26, 1979) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1980-81, c.33; 1983, c.11;

More information

Financial Services Tribunal

Financial Services Tribunal Financial Services Tribunal Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 FST

More information

BETWEEN: The Complainant COMPLAINANT. AND: The College of Psychologists of British Columbia COLLEGE. AND: A Psychologists REGISTRANT

BETWEEN: The Complainant COMPLAINANT. AND: The College of Psychologists of British Columbia COLLEGE. AND: A Psychologists REGISTRANT Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8W 3E9 Complainant v. The College of Psychologists of British Columbia DECISION NO. 2017-HPA-112(a) March 15, 2018 In the matter

More information

CROWN PROCEEDING ACT

CROWN PROCEEDING ACT PDF Version [Printer-friendly - ideal for printing entire document] CROWN PROCEEDING ACT Published by Quickscribe Services Ltd. Updated To: [includes B.C. Reg. 27/2013, Sch. 1 amendments (effective January

More information

December 10, Special Prosecutor issues Clear Statement re: Draft Multicultural Strategic Outreach Plan

December 10, Special Prosecutor issues Clear Statement re: Draft Multicultural Strategic Outreach Plan Media Statement December 10, 2018 18-25 Special Prosecutor issues Clear Statement re: Draft Multicultural Strategic Outreach Plan Victoria The BC Prosecution Service announced today that Special Prosecutor

More information

DECISION OF THE GENERAL MANAGER LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING BRANCH IN THE MATTER OF

DECISION OF THE GENERAL MANAGER LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING BRANCH IN THE MATTER OF DECISION OF THE GENERAL MANAGER LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING BRANCH IN THE MATTER OF A hearing pursuant to Section 20 of The Liquor Control and Licensing Act RSBC c. 267 Licensee: Avalon Land Corporation

More information

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Financial Services Tribunal Tribunal des services financiers RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL Ce document est également disponible en français TABLE

More information

INVESTIGATION REPORT LOBBYIST: Dana Hayden. May 2, 2016

INVESTIGATION REPORT LOBBYIST: Dana Hayden. May 2, 2016 INVESTIGATION REPORT 16-06 LOBBYIST: Dana Hayden May 2, 2016 SUMMARY: A consultant lobbyist filed a return to register as a lobbyist on behalf of a client after the deadline required by the Lobbyists Registration

More information

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner Province of British Columbia Order No July 11, 1997

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner Province of British Columbia Order No July 11, 1997 2 Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner Province of British Columbia Order No. 172-1997 July 11, 1997 ISSN 1198-6182 INQUIRY RE: A request by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for

More information

COMMUNITY FOREST AGREEMENT (CFA) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS (Direct Invitation to apply) July 1, 2009 Version - 1 -

COMMUNITY FOREST AGREEMENT (CFA) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS (Direct Invitation to apply) July 1, 2009 Version - 1 - COMMUNITY FOREST AGREEMENT (CFA) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS (Direct Invitation to apply) July 1, 2009 Version - 1 - TABLE OF CONTENTS APPLICATION ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION 4 Submission date and location

More information

INVESTIGATION REPORT LOBBYIST: Blair Lekstrom. September 24, 2015

INVESTIGATION REPORT LOBBYIST: Blair Lekstrom. September 24, 2015 INVESTIGATION REPORT 15-05 LOBBYIST: Blair Lekstrom September 24, 2015 SUMMARY: During an environmental scan, Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists ( ORL ) staff discovered a consultant lobbyist who appeared

More information

Cover Sheet. The incorporation is to take effect at the time that this application is filed with the Registrar.

Cover Sheet. The incorporation is to take effect at the time that this application is filed with the Registrar. PO Box 9431 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V3 www.corporateonline.gov.bc.ca Location: 2nd Floor - 940 Blanshard Street Victoria BC 1 877 526-1526 Cover Sheet Confirmation of Service Form Filed: Date and

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT FILE NUMBER 1801 COURT COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL CENTRE CALGARY Clerk s Stamp PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT DOCUMENT ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PARTY FILING THIS DOCUMENT

More information

CERTIFICATION APPEALS HANDLING PROCESS. For Individual Candidates seeking Certification and Qualified Individuals seeking Re-Certification

CERTIFICATION APPEALS HANDLING PROCESS. For Individual Candidates seeking Certification and Qualified Individuals seeking Re-Certification CERTIFICATION APPEALS HANDLING PROCESS For Individual Candidates seeking Certification and Qualified Individuals seeking Re-Certification CREST (GB) Ltd., 2013 Content 1. General Provisions 1.1 Principles

More information

Natural Gas Pipeline Benefits Agreement

Natural Gas Pipeline Benefits Agreement Natural Gas Pipeline Benefits Agreement Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project Between: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal

More information

THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL BY-LAW NO. 1 (as amended January 16, 2014) RULES OF PROCEDURE To Govern the Proceedings of the Toronto Licensing Tribunal DEFINITIONS 1. In these Rules, unless the context

More information

Aboriginal Law Update

Aboriginal Law Update November 24, 2005 Aboriginal Law Update The Mikisew Cree Decision: Balancing Government s Power to Manage Lands and Resources with Consultation Obligations under Historic Treaties On November 24, 2005,

More information

XatSOll Forest & Range Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreement (FCRSA) (the "Agreement")

XatSOll Forest & Range Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreement (FCRSA) (the Agreement) XatSOll Forest & Range Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreement (FCRSA) (the "Agreement") Between: Soda Creek Indian Band As Represented by Chief and Council (XatsOll) And Her Majesty the Queen in Right

More information

Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals

Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act 2002-142 Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I--PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Subpart

More information

Health Professions Review Board

Health Professions Review Board Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: 250 953-4956 Toll Free: 1-888-953-4986 (within BC) Facsimile: 250 953-3195 Mailing Address: PO 9429 STN PROV

More information

Health Professions Review Board

Health Professions Review Board Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: 250 953-4956 Toll Free: 1-888-953-4986 (within BC) Facsimile: 250 953-3195 Mailing Address: PO 9429 STN PROV

More information

Broken Glass, Broken Trust. A Report of the Investigation into the Complaint Against the City of Surrey

Broken Glass, Broken Trust. A Report of the Investigation into the Complaint Against the City of Surrey Special Report No. 25 September 2004 to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia Broken Glass, Broken Trust A Report of the Investigation into the Complaint Against the City of Surrey Table of Contents

More information

A COMPLAINT FILED UNDER THE FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION (RIGHT TO FARM) ACT CONCERNING DUST, MANURE MANAGEMENT AND FLOODING.

A COMPLAINT FILED UNDER THE FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION (RIGHT TO FARM) ACT CONCERNING DUST, MANURE MANAGEMENT AND FLOODING. File #12-24 DELIVERED BY EMAIL Affleck Hira Burgoyne LLP 700 570 Granville St Vancouver BC V6C 3P1 Gourlay Spencer Wade LLP 300 744 West Hastings St Vancouver BC V6C 1A5 Dear Sirs: A COMPLAINT FILED UNDER

More information

INVESTIGATION REPORT LOBBYIST: Peter Walters. December 17, 2015

INVESTIGATION REPORT LOBBYIST: Peter Walters. December 17, 2015 INVESTIGATION REPORT 15-12 LOBBYIST: Peter Walters December 17, 2015 SUMMARY: A consultant lobbyist filed a return to register as a lobbyist on behalf of a client after the deadline required by the Lobbyists

More information

The Advocate for Children and Youth Act

The Advocate for Children and Youth Act 1 The Advocate for Children and Youth Act being Chapter A-5.4* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2012 (effective September 1, 2012), as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2014, c.e-13.1; 2015, c.16;

More information

Forest Appeals Commission

Forest Appeals Commission Forest Appeals Commission Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9V1 APPEAL

More information

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT HEARING OFFICE

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT HEARING OFFICE Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario NIAGARA ESCARPMENT HEARING OFFICE A Guide to Development Permit Appeal Hearings and Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment Hearings under the Niagara Escarpment Planning

More information

LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DUTY TO CONSULT November, Meaghan Conroy Associate, Ackroyd LLP

LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DUTY TO CONSULT November, Meaghan Conroy Associate, Ackroyd LLP ACKROYD LLP LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DUTY TO CONSULT November, 2009 Meaghan Conroy Associate, Ackroyd LLP Since the release of The Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Haida 1, Taku 2 and Mikisew 3, Canadian

More information

(Ubfli. officeoi the. registrar. lobbyists BRITISH COLUMBIA INVESTIGATION REPORT LOBBYIST: Robert Iasenza 10, July. that the person under

(Ubfli. officeoi the. registrar. lobbyists BRITISH COLUMBIA INVESTIGATION REPORT LOBBYIST: Robert Iasenza 10, July. that the person under (Ubfli officeoi registrar of lobbyists BRITISH COLUMBIA INVESTIGATION REPORT 17-03 LOBBYIST: Robert Iasenza July 10, 2017 SUMMARY: An individual was in contravention of section 4.1 of Lobbyist Registration

More information

ARTICLE 1 - INTERPRETATION

ARTICLE 1 - INTERPRETATION Scowlitz First Nation Forest & Range Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreement (FCRSA) (the Agreement ) Between: Scowlitz First Nation As Represented by Chief and Council (Scowlitz First Nation) And Her

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And And Before: Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership, 2018 BCCA 283 Date: 20180709 Dockets:

More information

ORDER OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL

ORDER OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ORDER OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL Order in Council No. 286, Approved and Ordered June 14, 2018 Executive Council Chambers, Victoria Lieutenant Governor On the recommendation

More information

Assessment Review Board

Assessment Review Board Assessment Review Board RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (made under section 25.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act) INDEX 1. RULES Application and Definitions (Rules 1-2) Interpretation and Effect

More information

DISTRICT OF LAKE COUNTRY BYLAW 698, CONSOLIDATED VERSION (Includes amendment as of July 18, 2017)

DISTRICT OF LAKE COUNTRY BYLAW 698, CONSOLIDATED VERSION (Includes amendment as of July 18, 2017) DISTRICT OF LAKE COUNTRY BYLAW 698, 2008 CONSOLIDATED VERSION (Includes amendment as of July 18, 2017) This is a consolidated copy to be used for convenience only. Users are asked to refer to the Inter

More information

AGREEMENT To Establish a Joint Review Panel for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project Between

AGREEMENT To Establish a Joint Review Panel for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project Between AGREEMENT To Establish a Joint Review Panel for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project Between The Minister of the Environment, Canada - and - The Alberta Energy Regulator, Alberta PREAMBLE WHEREAS the Alberta

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Yahey v. British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 278 Date: 20180226 Docket: S151727 Registry: Vancouver Marvin Yahey on his own behalf and on behalf of all

More information

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION PRACTICE DIRECTIVE APPEALS UNDER SECTION 55 OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION PRACTICE DIRECTIVE APPEALS UNDER SECTION 55 OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT 1 Policy PD-01 December 4, 2014 Agricultural Land Commission Act AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION PRACTICE DIRECTIVE APPEALS UNDER SECTION 55 OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION ACT BACKGROUND This Practice

More information

PMI MEMBER ETHICAL STANDARDS MEMBER ETHICS CASE PROCEDURES

PMI MEMBER ETHICAL STANDARDS MEMBER ETHICS CASE PROCEDURES PMI MEMBER ETHICAL STANDARDS MEMBER ETHICS CASE PROCEDURES The following ethics case procedures are the only rules for processing possible violations of the ethical standards promulgated by the Project

More information

2014 General Local Election. Information Package for Candidates

2014 General Local Election. Information Package for Candidates 2014 General Local Election Information Package for Candidates Introduction Quick Reference Guide to Election Forms for Candidates Instructions for Completing Nomination Package Forms Nominations Nomination

More information

% AND: FACTUM OF THE INTERVENOR COUNCIL OF FOREST INDUSTRIES. No. CA Vancouver Registry COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN:

% AND: FACTUM OF THE INTERVENOR COUNCIL OF FOREST INDUSTRIES. No. CA Vancouver Registry COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: No. CA024761 Vancouver Registry COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: AND: CHIEF COUNCILLOR MATHEW HILL, also known as Tha-lathatk, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Kitkatla Band, and KITKATLA

More information

Via DATE: February 3, 2014

Via   DATE: February 3, 2014 Via Email: sitecreview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca DATE: February 3, 2014 To: Joint Review Panel Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22 nd Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 British Columbia Environmental

More information

Procedural Rules Mining and Lands Commissioner

Procedural Rules Mining and Lands Commissioner FR MENU Procedural Rules Mining and Lands Commissioner These rules apply to all proceedings before the Mining and Lands Commissioner that started on or after February 5, 2018. On this page Preamble Application

More information