Appeal No. 99-003

 

Date of Report and Recommendations - July 29, 1999


IN THE MATTER OF Sections 84, 85, 87, 92 and 93 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 West View Water Supply Ltd. with respect to Approval No. 18250-00-00 issued to West View Water Supply Ltd. by the Acting Director, Bow Region, Alberta Environmental Protection on December 22, 1998.

Cite as: West View Water Supply Ltd. v. Acting Director, Bow Region, Alberta Environmental Protection.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND 1
THE MEDIATION MEETING 2
RECOMMENDATIONS 3
RESOLUTION AGREEMENT 5
ORDER 7

 

MEDIATION MEETING BEFORE

Dr. Ted W.Best


APPEARANCES

Appellant: Mr. D.H. Sundgaard, Director and Vice President, Operations, and Mr. Ken J. Smallwood, West View Water Supply Ltd.

Department: Ms. Charlene Graham, counsel, representing the Director, Alberta Environment, Craig A. Reich, Municipal Approvals Technologist, Rob Kemp, Manager, Approvals, Alberta Environment

 

BACKGROUND

[1] On December 22, 1998, the Acting Director, Bow Region, Alberta Environmental Protection issued Approval No. 18250-00-00 to West View Water Supply Ltd. for the construction, operation and reclamation of a waterworks system including a Class 1 water treatment plant and water distribution system for the West View Estates subdivision in the Municipal District of Rocky View No 44.

[2] On February 12, 1999, the Environmental Appeal Board (Board) received a Notice of Appeal from Mr. D.H. Sundgaard of West View Water Supply Ltd., advising of their wish to appeal table 6-1 of Approval No 18250-00-00, that deals with the requirement to take daily turbidity measurements.

[3] The Board wrote to the Appellant on February 16, 1999, acknowledging receipt of the Notice of Appeal, and by copy of that letter, requested the Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) provide copies of all related correspondence, documents and materials related to this matter.

[4] According to standard practice, on February 12, 1999, the Board wrote to the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) and the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) asking whether this matter had been the subject of a hearing or review under their respective Boards' legislation. Replies were subsequently received from the NRCB on February 19, 1999 and the AEUB on February 24, 1999 stating that they did not hold any hearing or review under their respective legislation.

[5] On March 16, 1999, copies of the documents requested by the Board were provided by the Department and a copy was forwarded to West View Water Supply Ltd. on March 17, 1999. On March 22, 1999 the Board wrote to the Appellant on procedural matters which included asking the appellant if they wished to have a mediation meeting under section 11 of the Environmental Appeal Board Regulation(1), and if there were any other persons who might have an interest in the appeal. On the same date the Board wrote to the Department asking for comments on participating in a mediation meeting and asking whether there were any other persons who may have an interest in the appeal.

[6] The Appellant responded to the Board's letter of March 22, 1998 advising that they were receptive to a mediation meeting. The Director responded to the Board advising that they wished the matter proceed directly to a public hearing. The appeal hearing was scheduled for June 25, 1999, in Calgary. The appeal hearing was re-scheduled for June 22, 1999 and, on July 9, 1999 the appeal was adjourned.

[7] Following a letter received by the Board from Ms. Charlene Graham, counsel for the Director on July 14, 1999, the Board scheduled a mediation meeting to be held on July 28, 1999 in Calgary, Alberta.

THE MEDIATION MEETING

 

[8] Pursuant to section 11 of the regulations(2) the Board conducted a mediation meeting in Calgary, Alberta on July 28, 1999 with Dr. Ted Best as presiding Board member.

[9] According to the Board's standard practice the Board called the mediation meeting in an attempt to mediate or facilitate through a settlement conference the resolution of this appeal; or failing that, to structure procedural arrangements for the oral hearing. The Board invited representatives from each party to participate in the mediation meeting.

[10] In conducting the mediation meeting, Dr. Best reviewed the appeal and mediation process and explained the purpose of the mediation meeting. He then circulated copies of the "Participants' Agreement to Mediate". All parties signed the Agreement and discussions ensued.

[11] Following productive and detailed discussions, a resolution evolved at the July 28, 1999 mediation meeting and the attached settlement was signed (pages 5 and 6 of this report).

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

[12] The Board recommends that the Minister of Environment approve the conditions of the Resolution contained herein.

[13] Further, with respect to section 92(2) and 93 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the Board recommends that copies of this Report and Recommendations and of any decision by the Minister be sent to the following parties:

Dated July 29, 1999, at Calgary, Alberta

Dr. Ted Best

 

ORDER

I, Gary Mar, Minister of Environment, pursuant to Section 92 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act hereby order:

 

That the decision of the Acting Director, Bow Region, to issue Approval No. 18250-00-00 to West View Water Supply Ltd., be varied as set out in Appendix 1.

Dated at Edmonton this 25 day of August, 1999

Honourable Gary Mar
Minister of Environment

______ Refer to attachments (only if applicable)

 


FOOTNOTES

1. AR 114/93 (hereinafter "the regulations")

2. Section 11 of the Environmental Appeal Board Regulation (AR 114/93) states:

11 Where the Board has determined the parties to the appeal, the Board may, prior to conducting the hearing of the appeal, on its own initiative or at the request of the any of the parties, convene a meeting of the parties and any other interested persons the Board considers should attend, for the purpose of

(a) mediating a resolution of the subject matter of the notice of objection, or

(b) determining any of the matters referred to in section 13.

 

home back to decisions