Keywords: Standing to appeal; reconsideration of a previous decision on standing; proximity to facility; new evidence
Mr. Keays appealed a decision of the Assistant Regional Waste Manager to issue an amended permit to MacMillan Bloedel Paper Ltd. (the Permit Holder) authorizing the discharge of air from its pulp and paper mill in Powell River. The Permit Holder challenged Mr. Keays’ right of standing to bring an appeal under the Act. In a previous appeal decision (97-WAS-10(a)), the Board denied standing to Mr. Keays because there was no indication that he lived close enough to the mill site to be considered a “person aggrieved”. Mr. Keays then requested that the Board reconsider its decision to deny him standing, submitting new information that he lived 10 kilometres downwind from the mill site and that his children attended a school approximately 1 kilometre from the site.
The Board concluded that it was appropriate to reconsider the issue of Mr. Keays’ standing. The Panel found that proximity to a source of contamination or pollution is a valid consideration for assessing whether a person is a “person aggrieved” for the purpose of determining standing under the Act. The Panel held that in light of the new information, Mr. Keays had standing to appeal the amended permit. Mr. Keay’s appeal was allowed and the earlier decision on standing was reversed.
