Keywords:Waste Management Act – ss. 22; 25; 26(1)(b); 27; bias; conflict of interest; meaning of decision; refusal to exercise jurisdiction
7437 Holdings Ltd. (7437 Holdings) appealed a pollution abatement order to the Deputy Director of Waste Management. The Deputy Director made a finding on the scope of the order. However, the Deputy Director then sent the matter directly to the Board on the basis that his continuing to hear the appeal raised a reasonable apprehension of a conflict of interest due to his prior involvement in negotiations relating to part of 7437 Holdings lands. 7437 Holdings appealed to the Board on the grounds that the Deputy Director erred in finding that the order applied to future pollution and erred in referring the matter directly to the Board instead of referring it to a different Deputy Director of Waste Management.
The Board held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the finding regarding the scope of the order and the Deputy Directors refusal to continue to hear the appeal did not constitute a decision as defined by the Waste Management Act. It found that the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Board. By refusing to decide the appeal, the Deputy Director effectively eliminated 7437 Holdings statutory appeal right. The Board recommended that the matter be referred to a different Deputy Director to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. The appeal was dismissed.
