 |
| |
Our intent is to keep clients and friends of the firm up-to-date on the legal issues that affect them and their businesses.
|
| |
Jon Rossall, Partner
|
|
|
| |
McLennan Ross
> Publications
> Email Alerts
|
| |
|
Recreational users denied standing at EUB |
| 04-Oct-07 |
| |
An Energy, Environmental & Regulatory Law Update
In the matter of Sawyer v. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, the Court of Appeal reviewed whether the recreational users who had been denied standing by the Energy and Utilities Board had a right to appeal. An oil and gas company sought to drill critical sour gas wells and to build two pipelines to remove that gas in southern Alberta. At a pre-hearing meeting in June, the Board heard the submissions from Mr. Sawyer and others who requested standing and local intervener status for the hearing. Mr. Sawyer lives in Calgary and regularly visits the area in issue for recreational purposes and has done so for the past thirty years. His submission to the Board included that the emergency planning measures relative to the well required not only the input of the residents of the area but also of its recreational users.
The Board found that Mr. Sawyer had not shown direct and adverse impact to his family's health or safety. The EUB indicated that because the applicant and his family did not reside near the proposed well and pipelines, they were not subject to any potential direct and adverse impact claimed (unless they chose to frequent that area). The EUB also indicated that this type of well and pipeline was not new to the area and, therefore, there was not an increased health or safety issue to the members of the public using the area for recreation. The EUB asked firstly, whether the applicant's assertions to a right or interest was one known to law and, secondly, whether the Board has information that showed that the application before the Board may directly and adversely affect those interests or rights. The Board determined that the meaning of "directly affected" referred to a personal and individual interest as opposed to a general interest that pertained to that community as a whole.
The Court of Appeal found that the Board had considered Mr. Sawyer's evidence of his connection to the proposed site and had determined that the evidence tendered by Mr. Sawyer failed to establish the potential to a direct and adverse impact to his and his family's health. There was no suggestion that the Board misunderstood or misconstrued the material piece of evidence. The Court of Appeal found that there was no issue of law or no legal error and, as such, no leave to appeal could be given.
Based on this decision, parties who seek standing at EUB proceedings and are denied by the Board will have a very difficult time appealing the decision.
This update is a general overview of the subject matter and cannot be regarded as legal advice. Please contact Ron Kruhlak at rkruhlak@mross.com, Gavin Fitch at gfitch@mross.com, or any member of our Energy, Environmental & Regulatory Practice Group for advice on this or any other energy and environment law topic. |
| | |
| |
Calgary
1600 Stock Exchange Tower
300 - 5th Avenue SW
Calgary, AB T2P 3C4
p. 403.543.9120
f. 403.543.9150
tf. 1.888.543.9120 Edmonton
600 West Chambers
12220 Stony Plain Road
Edmonton, AB T5N 3Y4
p. 780.482.9200
f. 780.482.9100
tf. 1.800.567.9200 Yellowknife
802 Precambrian Building
4920 - 52nd Street
Yellowknife, NWT X1A 3T1
p. 867.766.7677
f. 867.766.7678
tf. 1.888.836.6684 www.mross.com |
|
|
Printer friendly version