Date of Report and Recommendations - January 21, 2000
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);
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal filed by Mr. Victor Almond, on behalf of Dominion Energy Canada Ltd. with respect to the decision of the Inspector, Land Reclamation Division, Parkland Region, Alberta Environment to refuse to issue a Reclamation Certificate to Dominion Energy Canada Ltd. for Application No. 39190.
Cite as: Dominion Energy Canada Ltd. v. Reclamation Inspector, Environmental Service, Prairie Region, Alberta Environment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|THE MEDIATION MEETING||2|
MEDIATION MEETING BEFORE
Dr. John P. Ogilvie
Appellant: Mr. Victor Almond, Dominion Energy Canada Ltd.
Department: Ms. Charlene Graham, counsel, representing Ms. Sherry Hazelaar, Reclamation Inspector, Environmental Service, Prairie Region, Alberta Environment
Other Participants: Mr. Roger Hillestad (via telephone)
 On October 25, 1999, the Reclamation Inspector, Environmental Service, Prairie Region, Alberta Environment, refused to issue Dominion Energy Canada Ltd. a reclamation certificate for Application No. 39190 for Remington et al Bow Island 1-23-10-9 Well site located at LSD 1 Section 23 Township 10 Range 9 W4M, near Bow Island, Alberta.
 On November 3, 1999, the Environmental Appeal Board (Board) received a Notice of Appeal from Mr. Victor Almond, on behalf of Dominion Energy Canada Ltd. (Appellant), advising of their wish to appeal the Inspector's decision.
 The Board wrote to the Appellant on November 4, 1999, acknowledging receipt of the Notice of Appeal, and by copy of that letter, requested the Department of Environment (Department) provide copies of all related correspondence, documents and materials related to this matter.
 According to standard practice, on November 4, 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 November 12, 1999 and the AEUB on November 17, 1999 stating that they did not hold any hearing or review under their respective legislation.
 On November 29, 1999, copies of the documents requested by the Board were provided by the Department and a copy was forwarded to Dominion Energy Canada Ltd. on November 30, 1999. On November 30, 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.
 The Appellant responded to the Board's letter of November 30, 1999 advising that they were receptive to a mediation meeting and stated that the landowners, Mr. Roger and Ms. Jo Ann Hillestad, may have an interest in this matter. The Director responded to the Board advising that they too were receptive to a mediation meeting. The Board forwarded a letter of December 14, 1999, advising that the mediation meeting was scheduled for January 20, 2000, in Calgary.
THE MEDIATION MEETING
 Pursuant to section 11 of the regulations(2) the Board conducted a mediation meeting in Calgary, Alberta on January 20, 2000 with Dr. John Ogilvie as presiding Board member.
 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.
 In conducting the mediation meeting, Dr. Ogilvie 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, with the landowner providing verbal agreement, and discussions ensued. The landowner, Mr. Roger Hillestad, continued to participate in the discussions via teleconference.
 Following productive and detailed discussions, a resolution evolved and the attached settlement was signed (page 4 of this report).
 The Board recommends that the Minister of Environment approve the conditions of the Resolution contained herein.
 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:
- Mr. Victor Almond, Dominion Energy Canada Ltd.
- Ms. Charlene Graham, counsel, Alberta Justice, representing the Reclamation Inspector, Environmental Service, Prairie Region, Alberta Environment; and
- Mr. Roger and Ms. Jo Ann Hillestad, Landowners.
Dated January 21, 2000, at Calgary, Alberta.
Dr. John P. Ogilvie
I, Gary Mar, Q.C. Minister of Environment, pursuant to Section 92 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, hereby order make the order in the attached appendix being the Environmental Appeal Board Appeal number 99-160-R Order.
Dated at the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, this7th day of February, 2000.
Honourable Gary Mar, Q.C.
Minister of Environment
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 appeal, or
(b) determining any of the matters referred to in section 13.