Keywords:Waste Management Act – s. 3, 22, 22.2 and 34; R. v. Alpha Manufacturing Inc., concurrent administrative and quasi-criminal penalties, definition of pollution; meaning of reasonable grounds; meaning of substantial
This in an appeal by Alpha Manufacturing against a pollution abatement and pollution prevention order requiring Alpha to cease discharging waste, to propose corrective measures and to implement pollution prevention to a seven-acre parcel in Burns Bog alleged to be outside Alphas waste permit boundaries. Alpha appealed on the grounds that the land was described in the permit, that the order was unreasonable and unnecessary, that the Ministry used inadequate methodology and that the order was made for improper purposes. It also requested the hearing be reopened to allow cross examination of a new witness.
The Board found that the contested area was outside the permit boundaries and that the placement of 55,000 m3 of material in that area was a substantial alteration of the environment: it constituted pollution. The Board rejected an argument that the definition of pollution requires a substance to have deleterious affect. The Board held that an environmental-assessment-type process is not required to make such orders. The orders were not unreasonable or unnecessary, the Ministry methodology was appropriate and the Board found no evidence that the orders were made for an improper purpose. The Board accepted new evidence in the form of a letter but refused to reopen the hearing to allow cross-examination. The appeal was dismissed.