Decision Date: August 22, 1997

Panel: David Brown

Keywords: Sewage Disposal Regulation – Appendix 1, Note (2), (3); Land Title Act – s.219; standing; meaning of “aggrieved”; curial deference; exercise of discretion in the application of minimum flow rate; trial de novo.

Mr. Sargent, on behalf of himself and 18 other neighbouring property owners, appealed a sewage disposal permit for a 13 unit vacation cottage development on the north shore of Shuswap Lake. The issues raised in the appeal were whether Mr. Sargent had standing to appeal, whether the Board should defer to the EHO’s finding that the development be characterized as a motel/hotel for the purposes of determining the minimum rate of flow, and whether the system complied with the Regulation and would protect local wells and the lake.

The Board found that Mr. Sargent had standing to appeal as he was a person that could be negatively impacted by the granting of the permit due to the proximity of his well. The Board did not give any deference to the EHO’s characterization of the development as similar to a hotel/motel because the appeal was a fresh trial and the EHO had no special knowledge that would make him better able to make this determination. The Board found that the sewage disposal system met all the regulatory requirements, and there was no evidence to support Mr. Sargent’s concerns regarding the rate of flow and contamination of well water and the Lake. However, a statutory covenant was ordered to ensure the property be limited to “vacation rental.” The appeal was dismissed.