Appeal No. 98-015

Date of Decision - April 3, 1998

IN THE MATTER OF Section 84, 85 and 87 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, (S.A. 1992, ch. E-13.3 as amended);

-and-

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal filed by Mr. Bill Lucey, Confederation of Regions Political Party (Federal) with respect to Approval No. 48460-00-00 issued to Bow River Pipe Lines Ltd. by the Acting Director of Land Reclamation, Alberta Environmental Protection


Cite as: Lucey v. Acting Director of Land Reclamation #4, re: Bow River Pipe Lines Ltd.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND 1

DECISION OF THE BOARD 4

BACKGROUND

[1] On March 16, 1998, Mr. Bill Lucey, Leader of the Confederation of Regions Political Party (Federal) [CORE], filed a Notice of Appeal with the Environmental Appeal Board [Board]. Mr. Lucey objected to Approval No. 48460-00-00 issued by the Acting Director of Land Reclamation [Director], Alberta Environmental Protection [Department], to Bow River Pipe Lines Ltd. for the construction and reclamation of the Mainline Expansion - Princess Station North Loop. Mr. Lucey's Notice of Appeal contained the following information:

"Please accept this letter as our "Core's" Notice of appeal to the application and approval numbers listed above.

We "Core", demand a five to ten year halt on this project, or until the price of crude oil recovers to the twenty five dollars (U.S) range.

We see no reason to obtain low royaltys [sic] and "wreck" the envionment [sic], just to keep some Calgary oil investors happy, (they are never satified [sic].)

We, "Core", have lost faith in "Alberta Justice", they have made some real great headlines lately, re: "LICIA CORBELLA" - comment page C2 Calgary Sun March 15, 1998.

We, "Core", will urge Premier Ralph, to privatize Alberta Justice and Alberta envionment [sic], for not doing proper work."


[2] On March 19, 1998, the Board informed Mr. Frank Janzen, Project Co-ordinator for Bow River Pipelines Ltd. that an appeal had been filed by Mr. Lucey and provided him with a copy of Mr. Lucey's appeal.

[3] The Board acknowledged Mr. Lucey's appeal in a letter dated March 19, 1998, and asked Mr. Lucey to respond to the following questions:

"I. Required Contents of the Notice of Objection

Section 5(1) of the Board's regulations require notices of objection to include specific information. Your March 15, 1998 letter does not specifically reference this section of the regulations, but does provide some of the required information. The section 5(1) information requirements are quoted below. Please respond to the requests (following each of these listed requirements):
. . .

(d) "a description of the relief requested by the person objecting"

Your Notice of Appeal is based on several generalized concerns. Please indicate what relief (i.e. result) you wish to obtain from this appeal. Please be as specific as possible. If you object to specific provisions of the Director's Approval decision, rather than or in addition to the approval as a whole, state specifically which provisions you object to and describe what modifications you would request to be made to these provisions.

. . .

II. Your Eligibility To File A Notice of Objection Based On "Direct Affects"

As relevant here, section 84(1) of the Act provides that a notice of objection of a Director's decision, like the Director's Approval No. 48460-00-00 (hereinafter, the "Approval"), may be submitted by a person who is "directly affected" by the decision. Section 87(5) of the Act authorizes the Board to dismiss a notice of objection prior to conducting a hearing on the merits if the person who submits the notice fails to meet this "directly affected" test.

Please explain how you are "directly affected" by the Director's Approval. Given your history with the Environmental Appeal Board, where several of your previous appeals have been dismissed, the Board urges you to give more specific details of your personal interest in this appeal.

III. Issues Raised By Your Appeal

At this stage of the appeal, the Board would like you to indicate the reasons why you believe the Board should grant the relief you are requesting and list the issues that you would like to address in a potential hearing on the Approval. Your letter does not specifically summarize your concerns with the Approval, or state them clearly to provide sufficient detail for the Board.

. . .

Deadline For Responding To This Letter; Caution Regarding Failure To Respond

Please provide your responses regarding the matters requested in this letter by April 2, 1998. You should be aware that the Board has the ability to dismiss an appeal if you do not provide us with all of the information which we need and which we seek at this time. Accordingly, please answer all of the questions as thoroughly as possible and send them to this office within the deadline. Failure to respond to this request may result in the Board's dismissal of your appeal."

[4] According to standard practice, on March 19, 1998, the Board also wrote to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) and the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) requesting that both advise whether the matter was the subject of a public hearing or a review under either of their legislation. In letters dated March 20 and March 23, 1998, the NRCB and AEUB advised that the appeal did not deal with a matter that had been the subject of a review under their respective Boards.

[5] On March 23, 1998, counsel for the Director responded to the Board's letter of March 19, 1998 to Mr. Lucey, stating that the appeal be dismissed and concluded that:

"In summary, Mr. Lucey:

has not complied with the requirements of EPEA, the regulations or the EAB's Rules of Practice,

b) has not complied with the EAB's Order made in Decision 97-047 regarding the submission of appeals,

c) is not directly affected by the Decision of the Director (the project being in Brooks, Mr. Lucey being in Calgary), and

has not expressed any specific environmental concerns regarding this approval."

DECISION OF THE BOARD

[7] Mr. Lucey's Notice of Appeal does not meet any of the criteria related to standing necessary for the Board to continue its jurisdiction. Mr. Lucey has not, to the Board's satisfaction, raised specific environmental matters related to Bow River Pipe Lines Ltd.'s Approval. He has not shown that either he or the Confederation of Regions Political Party (Federal) or any of its members are plausibly directly affected by the Acting Director's decision in the construction and reclamation of the Mainline Expansion - Princess Station North Loop. Further, in the Board's letter of March 19, 1998 it clearly issued a warning to Mr. Lucey that failure to respond to the information sought may result in dismissal. He did not respond.

[8] This appeal is, therefore, dismissed pursuant to section 87(5)(a) of the Act.


Dated on April 3, 1998 at Edmonton, Alberta.


Dr. William A. Tilleman

 

home back to decisions