Decision Date: April 12, 2002

Panel: Alan Andison

Keywords: Health Act – ss. 8(4); Environmental Appeal Board Procedure Regulation – ss. 4(2); standing; person aggrieved; sewage disposal system; procedural fairness; hearing conducted in writing; improper purpose; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 174 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (S.C.C.)

The Appellants appealed the decision of the Environmental Health Officer (the “EHO”) to issue a permit to construct a sewage disposal system. The EHO applied to dismiss the appeals on the grounds that the Appellants were not persons who were “aggrieved” by the issuance of the permit and, as such, had no standing to appeal the permit. The EHO also applied to have the appeals heard by way of written submissions, if the Board decided that the Appellants had standing in the matter.

The Board found that each of the Appellants resided sufficiently close to the development that their interests could be negatively impacted if the proposed system did not adequately protect public health. Accordingly, the Board found that the Appellants were persons aggrieved.

The Board also concluded that any evidence and submissions relating to the appeals could be fully and fairly provided by way of written submissions. The Board was not satisfied that issues of credibility would be significant in the appeals. The Board also considered the Appellants’ argument that an oral hearing was needed so that the parties could be heard in a public forum, but concluded that the appeal process is not, nor should it be, intended to replace public consultation processes.

Accordingly, the application to dismiss the appeals for lack of standing was denied, and the application to conduct the appeals by way of written submissions was granted.