Decision Date: June 14, 2004

Panel: Alan Andison

Keywords:  Waste Management Act – s. 44; person aggrieved, standing; air discharge approval

Ajah Azreal appealed an approval issued by the Regional Manager, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to Nexterra Energy Corp (“Nexterra”).  The approval authorizes Nexterra to discharge emissions from a research and development gasification plant in Kamloops.

The Regional Manager and Nexterra filed separate applications to have Mr. Azreal’s appeal dismissed on the basis that he was not a “person aggrieved” by a decision, as required under section 44 of the Waste Management Act.  Both parties submitted that Mr. Azreal lived more than 20 kilometres away from the gasification plant site and, therefore he would not be personally affected by the approval.

The Board considered some of its previous decisions in which it held that a “person aggrieved” in section 44 means a “person who has genuine grievances because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interests.”  The Board found that all but one of Mr. Azreal’s grounds of appeal related to the potential effects of the approval on people other than himself.  The Board found that Mr. Azreal did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim that the emissions would affect him at his home or when he travelled through Kamloops.  The Board accepted the opinion of the Regional Meteorologist that particulate matter would not be detected outside the immediate industrial area surrounding the plant, and the evidence of the Regional Manager that monitoring conducted since the plant went into operation indicated no changes in ambient levels of particulates.

While the Board found that Mr. Azreal was not required to provide definitive proof that he will be harmed by the approval, the Board found that he did not disclose enough evidence for the Board to reasonably conclude that his personal interests are being prejudicially affected.

The Board found that Mr. Azreal did not have standing to appeal the approval.  The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.