Appeal No. 00-070

 

Date of Decision - January 30, 2001

 

IN THE MATTER OF Sections 84, 85, and 87 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, S.A. 1992, c. E-13.3;

-and-

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal, filed by Mr. Elgar Newsham on November 9, 2000, with respect to Approval No. 00141557-00-00 issued under the Water Act, to Mr. Elgar Newsham, by the Manager, Regional Support, Parkland Region, Alberta Environment.

Cite as: Newsham v. Manager, Regional Support, Parkland Region, Alberta Environment.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND 1
DECISION 3

 

BACKGROUND

[1] On November 2, 2000, the Manager, Regional Support Parkland Region, Alberta Environment (the "Director") issued Approval No. 00141557-00-00 to Mr. Elgar Newsham (the "Appellant"), for the exploration of groundwater subject to certain conditions.

[2] On November 9, 2000, the Board received a Notice of Appeal from Mr. Newsham, appealing the Approval.

[3] On November 14, 2000, the Board acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Appeal and, on that same date, requested a copy of all correspondence, documents, and materials related to the appeal from the Director.

[4] According to standard practice, on November 14, 2000, the Board wrote to the Natural Resources Conservation Board (the "NRCB") and the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (the "AEUB") asking whether this matter had been the subject of a hearing or review under their respective Boards' legislation. A reply was subsequently received from the NRCB on November 20, 2000, and from the AEUB on November 30, 2000 stating that they did not hold any hearing or review under their respective legislation.

[5] On December 4, 2000, the Board received a letter from counsel for the Director, stating the following:

"I have received instructions from the Director that he will cancel the Approval to Explore for Groundwater which was issued to Mr. Newsham. The Director will cancel this approval as Mr. Newsham has applied for a Traditional Agriculture Use Registration. Mr. Newsham's application for registration has not been processed.

It is the Director's contention that the cancellation of this Approval should remove the need for an appeal. I would appreciate both Mr. Newsham and the Board confirming that this is correct."

[6] The Board subsequently wrote to Mr. Newsham on December 4, 2000, requesting that Mr. Newsham advise whether he would be withdrawing his appeal.

[7] On December 18, 2000, the Board wrote to the Director. The Board had been advised by Mr. Newsham, in a telephone conversation, that he had not yet received confirmation that the Approval had been cancelled. The Board requested that the Director advise whether the Approval had been cancelled.

[8] The Director responded to the Board's letter of December 18, 2000, advising that the Director had not yet cancelled the Approval as he had anticipated receiving comment from Mr. Newsham and the Board as to the acceptability of his proposal.

[9] The Board wrote to the Appellant and Director on December 20, 2000. The Board requested that the Director provide the Board with written confirmation that the Approval had been cancelled. At that point, the Board advised, that they would request that Mr. Newsham consider withdrawing his appeal.

[10] On January 11, 2001, the Board received a letter from counsel for the Director, enclosing a letter from the Director to the Appellant, cancelling the Approval. The Director's letter also advised Mr. Newsham that his application for Registration for Traditional Agriculture Users would continue to be processed and that he would be notified of the decision.

[11] The Board wrote to the Appellant on January 15, 2001, attaching the Director's letters and requested that Mr. Newsham advise whether or not he would be withdrawing his appeal. The Board requested that Mr. Newsham respond by January 23, 2001.

[12] No response was received to the Board's January 15, 2001 letter and on January 23, 2001, the Board attempted to contact Mr. Newsham by telephone. Mr. Newsham did not return the Board's telephone call. The Board attempted to contact Mr. Newsham again on January 25 and 26, 2001. As no response was received, the Board wrote to the Appellant on January 26, 2001, advising that the Board was dismissing the Appeal.

DECISION

[13] Section 87(5)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (the "Act") states:

87(5)The Board

may dismiss a notice of appeal if…

(ii) the person who submitted the notice of appeal fails to comply with a written notice under section 85.

[14] The Board hereby exercises its discretion and dismisses the Notice of Appeal filed by Mr. Elgar Newsham for having failed to comply with the Board?s written request under section 85 of the Act.

Dated January 30, 2001 at Edmonton, Alberta

Dr. William A. Tilleman

 

home back to decisions