Decision Date: July 18, 1996

Panel: David Brown, Sheila Bull, Elinor Turrill

Keywords: Waste Management Act – s. 1, 22.2(2), 22.2(4), 22.2(5) and s. 28(3); B.C. Interpretation Act – s. 8; Re Bell Telephone; West Fraser Timber Co. v. British Columbia (Regional Waste Manager); R. v. K.C. Irving; Sayle v. Jevco Insurance Co.; definition of pollution, meaning of “likely;” meaning of “satisfied on reasonable grounds;” burden of proof; standard of proof, rejection of evidence

This is an appeal by the Van Der Wals of the parts of the Deputy Director of Waste Management’s 1995 order, including amendments, that requires their property to be used as an access route to a lot owned by the Hide-Away Motel. In 1991, the Appellants and Amstutz Contracting carried out landfill operations under permit on the Appellant’s property. A depression in the adjoining Hide-Away property was accentuated by the landfill. In 1995, the Deputy Director issued a Pollution Prevention Order to the Appellants and Amstutz requiring them to fill the depression to prevent erosion, fire and settling from occurring. Only the Appellants appealed the Order.

The Board found no evidence of pollution and, therefore, the Respondent had no reasonable grounds to make the Order. Further, there was no evidence that the “activity of operation” performed by the Appellants was not in compliance with their permit. Accordingly, the Respondent had no power to make the Order. The Board allowed the appeal and reversed all the provisions in the Order as they applied to the Appellants.