Keywords: Waste Management Act – s. 48; stay application; remediation order
The Appellants applied for a stay of the order issued by the Regional Waste Manager requiring the aforementioned parties to submit and implement a remediation plan to address contamination on several properties.
While the Panel found that the appeal raised serious issues to be decided, it concluded that the Applicants failed to demonstrate that the refusal to grant a stay would result in irreparable harm to the Applicant’s interests. In particular, no evidence was presented showing that paying the costs associated with the remediation would result in permanent market loss, bankruptcy or company shut down. The Panel also noted that each of the Applicants has a remedy for recovery of remediation costs under section 27(4) of the Waste Management Act. On the issue of the balance of convenience, the Panel found that the potential harm to human health, the environment, and public interest if a stay was granted exceeded the potential harm to the interests of the Applicants if a stay was denied. A stay would delay the remediation process, and there are legitimate concerns about the migration of contaminants into the Quesnel River.
Therefore, the application for a stay was denied applications.