Decision Date: September 23, 1998

Panel: Toby Vigod

Keywords: Environmental Appeal Board Procedure Regulation – s. 4(2); Environment Management Act – s. 11(14.1); jurisdiction to change the form of a hearing after 60 days

The Permit Holder, Triple R Developments (“Triple R”) made two applications: that the appeal hearing be conducted by way of written submissions, and that the Appellants be ordered to post a bond to cover Triple R’s costs in the appeal. The appeals concerned a Sewage Disposal Permit issued to Triple R by an Environmental Health Officer. Triple R argued that a written hearing would be more efficient because no new material was raised by the Appellants since a similar appeal in 1995 concerning this site. Furthermore, Triple R argued that the appeals were simply an attempt to prevent the development from proceeding, and, as such, were vexatious, frivolous and abusive.

The Panel decided that for reasons of fairness and efficiency, an oral hearing was necessary. These appeals involved 6 parties who disagreed on the issues, facts, and jurisdiction of the Board. Except in relatively simple cases, a written hearing is not appropriate or efficient. The Panel also decided not to grant the request for a security bond, since there was insufficient evidence to show that the Appellants were pursuing a frivolous appeal, that it was for an improper purpose, or that they had unnecessarily delayed the proceedings. Thus, the Panel refused the Permit Holder’s applications