Decision Date: January 5, 2001

Panel: Alan Andison

Keywords: Sewage disposal permit; summary dismissal; written submissions.

The Appellants appealed a decision to issue a sewage disposal permit. The Environmental Health Officer (“EHO”) made two preliminary applications requesting the Board to deny the appeals summarily, or alternatively, hear the appeals by way of written submissions.

The EHO, as the applicant, had the onus of establishing why the appeals should be dismissed without a hearing on the merits. The EHO’s submissions, which were not extensive, focused on the fact that the decision to issue a permit for the proposed development has been appealed on two previous occasions. While the Board generally will not re-hear matters on which it has already made a final decision, the Panel noted that the EHO effectively conceded that there is a new question raised by these appeals: whether the building plans match the estimated daily sewage flow shown in the permit. In addition, the Appellants raised valid concerns regarding the safety of the permitted system and the adequacy of public notice of the permit. As such, the Panel found that it had not been provided with sufficient reasons to justify dismissing the appeals summarily.

The Panel found that several of the issues raised by the Appellants have been dealt with in previous appeals and that the relevant issues do not raise significant questions of credibility. While there are some new issues and the parties clearly dispute certain material facts relating to the interpretation of the building plans, the facts in dispute are not complex. Further, the issue of adequate posting of notice may be fairly addressed without the need for an oral hearing. For these reasons, the Panel found that a written hearing will provide the parties with a meaningful opportunity to be fully and fairly heard.

The application to summarily dismiss the appeals was denied. The application to hear the appeals by way of written submissions was granted.