BOARD PREPARED TO ISSUE AN INTERIM STAY UNTIL MIDNIGHT JULY 5, 2002, OR THE ISSUANCE OF THE BOARD’S DECISION ON THE MERITS OF THE STAY APPLICATION, WHICHEVER OCCURS EARLIER, ENGINEER MAY SUBMIT HIS REPLY SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD BY JUNE 25, 2002, THE APPELLANTS MAY PROVIDE REBUTTAL COMMENTS NO LATER THAN JUNE 27, 2002
Mr. Stirling requested a stay of an order of the Engineer under the Water Act (the “Engineer”) to remove certain water works.
After Mr. Stirling filed his initial submission on the stay application, the Board learned that the Engineer may not have been aware of the stay application and was unable to make submissions on the application until after the order was to take effect. The Board found that it would be in the interest of fairness to grant a short extension of the deadlines for the parties to provide their respective reply and rebuttal submissions.
The Board also found no evidence that a short interim stay pending a decision on the merits of the stay application would unduly prejudice the Engineer or any other persons, while Mr. Stirling’s interest could be harmed if he was required to implement the order before a decision on the merits of the stay application was made.
