Mr. Stevens appealed the Regional Waste Manager’s decision to issue a permit to Cheslatta Forest Products Ltd. (“Cheslatta”) to operate a beehive burner in the Ootsa Lake area. Cheslatta argued that Mr. Stevens lacked standing to bring the appeal. The issue before the Board was whether Mr. Stevens was a “person aggrieved” under section 44(1) of the Waste Management Act and, therefore, had standing to bring the appeal.
Although Mr. Stevens stated that he travelled occasionally for work or pleasure to the area in and around Burns Lake, and that this took him close to the location of the burner, the Board found that Mr. Stevens had not produced any evidentiary basis upon which the Board could reasonably find that he was a “person aggrieved” for the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Board found that Mr. Stevens provided no evidence that smoke would, or even could, make its way from the burner site to areas in and around Burns Lake, which is located between 50 and 60 km away. Moreover, Mr. Stevens failed to say how often he travelled to Burns Lake, the length of time he spent in the area, or the time of year during which he travelled.
The Board also found that although Mr. Stevens had a sincere interest in air quality issues and had taken an active role in attempting to improve air quality, this was not sufficient to make him a “person aggrieved” under the Act. Accordingly, the Board was not satisfied that Mr. Stevens’ interests were personally affected by the emissions from burner. In conclusion, the Board held that Mr. Stevens did not have standing to appeal the Regional Waste Manager’s decision. Cheslatta’s application to dismiss the appeal was granted.