Decision Date: October 9, 1998

Panel: Toby Vigod

Keywords: Waste Management Act – s. 27.4, 28, 48; Contaminated Sites Regulation – s. 56; stay; RJR-MacDonald v. Canada; remediation

Petro Canada applied to the Board to reconsider its refusal to grant a stay of the Remediation Order issued to Halme’s Auto Service, Petro Canada, and Chardale Enterprises pending a decision on the appeal (see 98-WAS-18(a)). This application was based on new information: a Court Order, and a letter from Chemainus Fuels Ltd. (“CF”), the current owner of the site, indicating that it intended to commence remediation of the property promptly and set off reasonable expenses against Chardale. Petro Canada argued that the new information shifted the balance of convenience in favour of granting a stay of the Order.

The Board found that the new information regarding CF’s willingness to remediate the site did not shift the balance in favour of a stay. The Board found no greater likelihood that remediation would be faster or more efficient if undertaken as an independent remediation by CF than would occur under the Order. Further, the Board noted that if the Order was stayed and the remediation by CF proceeded, the Ministry would have no power to enforce the remediation except by issuing another remediation order. The Board also noted that the issue under appeal was the Appellants’ liability, not the terms of the Order. Therefore, the Board denied Petro Canada’s application.