Decision Date: October 31, 2000

Panel: Alan Andison

Keywords: Oral hearing; cross-examination; stay application

The Appellants (“BCR Group”) applied to the Board to request that an oral hearing be held in the stay application relating to the above-captioned appeal in order to allow BCR Group to cross-examine Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd. (“COPL”) on an issue concerning COPL’s corporate policy. This application relates to the appeal by BCR Group of the Director’s decision to include BCR Group as a person responsible (along with COPL) in a remediation order concerning a former chlor-alkali plant in Squamish. BCR Group wanted to cross-examine COPL to establish that COPL had assumed full responsibility for the site remediation, and that over the last decade, COPL had excluded BCR Group from the remediation process. BCR Group submitted that this evidence is necessary to enable the Board to properly assess the balance of convenience when deciding whether to grant a stay.

The Board noted that the balance of convenience requires the Board to assess the harm to the environment, COPL, and other parties if a stay is granted, versus the harm to BCR Group if a stay is denied. The Board found that the evidence BCR Group was seeking to adduce through cross-examination is not of sufficient relevance to the balance of convenience and, as such, an oral hearing was not warranted. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.