MR. GOGGINS HAS STANDING TO APPEAL THE AMENDED PERMIT, HIS APPEAL WILL PROCEED; BOARD FIND THAT NEITHER MR. KEAYS OR HIS CO-APPELLANT, MR. FLEISCHER, HAVE STANDING TO APPEAL THE DECISION, THAT APPEAL IS DISMISSED
Keywords: Waste Management Act; standing to appeal; air pollution; proximity; public interest standing; standing legislation
Mr. Goggins and Mr. Keays filed separate appeals against an Amended Permit issued by the Assistant Regional Waste Manager authorizing an additional discharge of contaminants to the air from a new boiler at the pulp and paper mill in Powell River of MB Paper Limited (the Permit Holder). The Permit Holder challenged the Appellants’ individual right of standing to bring an appeal against the Amended Permit, arguing that neither Appellant had provided sufficient evidence to show “how” he was actually “aggrieved” by the decision. Mr. Goggins argued that he had a personal interest in the environmental consequences of the discharge of emissions that would be allowed by the Amended Permit because of the proximity of his family’s home and school to the facility. He asserted that this personal interest qualified him as a “person aggrieved” under Section 44 (1) of the Waste Management Act. Mr. Keays argued that he merited legal standing in that he represented the public interest and the interests of the unborn and of the local natural fauna that could not otherwise represent themselves.
In Mr. Goggins’ case the Panel took the view that residency and proximity to the discharge site are highly relevant to an assessment of the reasonableness of a person’s belief that a decision has been made which prejudicially affects his or her interests. The Panel accepted that Mr. Goggins was a “person aggrieved” under the Act, and that his appeal would therefore proceed. However, the Panel held that Mr. Keays’ argument was insufficient to give him standing under the Act. Mr. Keays was therefore not granted standing and his appeal was dismissed.
