Keywords:Sewage Disposal Regulation – ss. 3(4)(a), 19(a) Schedule 2; sewage disposal permit; easement; meaning of “roadway”
Monique Bosse and Bruce Johanson (the “Appellants”) filed separate appeals against the decision of the Environmental Health Officer (the “EHO”) to issue a sewage disposal permit to Paul and Martha Fisher on January 31, 2005. They asked the Board to rescind the EHO’s decision to issue the sewage disposal permit.
The main argument in both appeals was that the permit should not have been issued because there was previously an access route to the Appellants’ properties in the location of the absorption field, and that, under an easement, the Appellants are currently entitled to travel to their properties over the field location.
Accordingly, the Board confirmed the issuance of the sewage disposal permit.
The Board accepted the argument that a corridor need not be paved to be a “roadway”, and agreed that, to qualify as a “roadway” for the purposes of the Sewage Disposal Regulation (the “Regulation”), it must be intended for vehicle traffic. The Board found there was no historical roadway in the location of the field, nor was the location of the field the only viable route for a roadway to access the Appellants’ properties, and, therefore, the sewage disposal system did not contravene section 19(a) of Schedule 2 of the Regulation. The Board also found that the Fishers honestly believed there were alternative routes for the Appellants to access their respective properties, and did not contravene section 3(4)(a) of the Regulation. Furthermore, the Board found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the notification requirements under the Regulation were not complied with.